Prayers - 
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Virtual participation in proceedings commenced (Order, 4 June).
[NB: [V] denotes a Member participating virtually.]

Oral
Answers to
Questions

Defence

The Secretary of State was asked—

Defence Helicopters: Domestic Manufacture

Chris Loder: What steps he is taking to support the domestic manufacture of defence helicopters.

Jeremy Quin: The Department is committed to supporting UK helicopters and the defence industry more broadly. Over the next decade, we plan to spend over £180 billion on equipment and equipment support, which currently includes around £10.9 billion on helicopter capability.

Chris Loder: Many of my constituents in West Dorset work for Leonardo Helicopters in Yeovil, where redundancies have recently been announced. That is of great concern to me, my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr Fysh). What is the Minister doing to support the company?

Jeremy Quin: I share my hon. Friend’s concern. I am pleased to reassure him that those redundancies do not relate to any changes of plan on Ministry of Defence work, but rather to a decision taken by the company to ensure that it remains on a financially strong footing. We continue to work actively with Leonardo on its excellent Merlin and Wildcat helicopters, and I am pleased to support its export drives, including earlier this month in person, in Poland.

Khalid Mahmood: Will the Minister ask the Secretary of State to step up to the plate and match the commitment made by the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), to procure “built in Britain”, hence ensuring that there are no redundancies in West Dorset, and to support the awarding of the £1.5 billion fleet solid support vessels contract to a British consortium, to recruit and retain 2,500 UK jobs, and to do so for the many other shovel-ready defence projects, to support British industry, British workers and the British economy to lead us through this covid recession?

Jeremy Quin: We are proud to support many British companies and the entire UK defence sector. Something like £19.2 billion was given to UK companies in 2018-19 to deliver on our defence needs. This has been brought out through our defence and security industrial strategy—DSIS—of which I look forward to sharing more details with the House when it is delivered later this year.

Armed Forces Capability: Future Security Threats

Gagan Mohindra: What steps his Department is taking to ensure that armed forces capability is adequate to tackle future security threats.

Joy Morrissey: What steps his Department is taking to ensure that armed forces capability is adequate to tackle future security threats.

Ben Wallace: The Ministry of Defence is examining its capability requirements through the integrated review, guided by Defence Intelligence’s understanding of the threats we face now and in the future. We are examining the evolving doctrines, structures and capabilities of our adversaries to ensure that we develop the capabilities required to deliver the operations of tomorrow.

Gagan Mohindra: The defence industry employs tens of thousands of people. Long-term investment in defence will drive economic growth and support highly paid, highly skilled jobs, all of which is in our national interest. Will my right hon. Friend work with the Treasury to ensure that the defence industry is central to plans for our economic recovery and that an ambitious strategy is reflected in the integrated review?

Ben Wallace: I am always happy to work with the Treasury on any number of subjects. Defence’s multibillion-pound investment in the UK powers the skills, innovation and capabilities that keep this country safe, secure and competitive. As a Lancashire MP, Mr Speaker, you will recognise how important the industry is to the skills base in our constituencies. Defence is leading a review of the defence and security industrial strategy to identify steps to ensure a competitive and world-class industrial base that delivers investment, employment and prosperity across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Joy Morrissey: Following recent media reports, what more can my right hon. Friend say on the role that Defence Intelligence plays in assessing threats and our ability to counter them? Will he consider meeting me about an issue concerning a former MOD intelligence training site in Beaconsfield?

Ben Wallace: Defence Intelligence uses its 4,500 exceptionally talented staff to collect, analyse and exploit intelligence. By working internationally and with other Departments, it is able to judge today’s threat and tomorrow’s and ensure that that feeds into the future design under the integrated review.

John Healey: May I start by paying tribute to the forces men and women who are working to help the country through the covid crisis? We may soon need to turn to them again, in the face of this renewed pandemic threat.
On the integrated review, I recognise that the cycle of defence decisions does not match the cycle of political elections. Britain still benefits from the skills, technologies and capabilities at the heart of Labour’s Drayson review 15 years ago. The Opposition want the Government to get this integrated review right, but when this is the third Conservative review in just 10 years, how will the Defence Secretary avoid making the big mistakes of the last two?

Ben Wallace: The mistake of all the defence reviews—including the 1998 one, which was exceptionally good, and Lord Drayson’s review—was that they were not matched by funding. The Labour party had exactly the same problem at its last review, which is why in 2010 we inherited a black hole of billions of pounds, and indeed, there is a black hole now, identified by the National Audit Office. This is not unique to any political party. Selective picking of the last two reviews, when I could probably talk about the last five, makes no difference. The key is to ensure that our review is driven by threat. The threat defines what we need to do to keep us safe at home, and the ambition defines how far we wish to go. All that then needs to be matched with Treasury funding. If we are over-ambitious, underfunded or both, we will in a few years’ time end up in the position we are in today and have been in the past. It has been my determination to support the men and women of the armed forces the shadow Secretary of State talks about by making sure that we give them something we can afford and tailoring our ambition to match our pocket.

John Healey: Of course, the Labour Government invested in defence at a higher rate each year than that of the previous 10 years, but the Secretary of State is right about the big aims and challenges. He has previously described the 2015 review as over-ambitious and underfunded, and to over-promise and under-deliver has become something of a hallmark of this Government, but that most recent review left Britain with a £7 billion black hole for military equipment; 8,000 fewer soldiers than Ministers pledged as the minimum; and multibillion-pound contracts placed abroad when we could build in Britain. Of course, there is also a pandemic disease, which was confirmed as a tier 1 threat but no Government action was taken to prepare for it. For all the Secretary of State’s talk of the grand picture and grand strategy, does he accept that the British public and the Opposition will judge the Government by these tests?

Ben Wallace: I think that I misheard. I thought the shadow Secretary of State was talking about the position that we inherited in 2010, which was underfunded and over-ambitious—indeed, there was an equipment hole so big that many of the tanks could be driven through it. He could also point out that our men and women in the armed forces have been ready: they have delivered an excellent covid response and have not been found wanting in any way. That is partly because of the investment we have put into them, but also because of expert leadership through the officers and the civil servants in the Department and across the Government.
I assure the shadow Secretary of State that the best way to avoid the pitfalls of the past is to make sure that our ambition is matched by our pockets and what we put into the review. That is fundamentally the best thing we can do for all our forces. I would be delighted to hear  the Labour party’s ambition on foreign policy and security; the previous Labour party leadership’s ambition for foreign policy was surrender.

Stewart McDonald: I echo the comments of the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), about the armed forces and the job they are doing in the current crisis.
We in Scotland know all about over-ambition and under-delivery when it comes to the Ministry of Defence, because six years ago we were promised a frigate factory, but that promise was broken, and we were promised 12,500 regular troops in Scotland, but the number has never even come close to hitting 10,000. Is it not time, if we are to avoid this cycle of over-promising and under-delivery, to move towards multi-year defence agreements that bring together the Secretary of State’s Department, the Treasury and parties in this House to prevent the £13 billion equipment-plan black hole from growing ever further?

Ben Wallace: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. Of course, he may have missed the Type 31 frigate and the Type 26 ships that are being made in Scotland. He may have missed Faslane, although I know they do not want to talk about that in the Scottish National party. He may have missed the recent basing of the P-8s in Kinloss. There will be more investment and more units placed in Scotland, because we believe that the United Kingdom is the best union in this country to deliver security for all its citizens. We do not believe in separation; we do not believe in putting borders between our two countries; and we do not believe in trying to kid-on people in Scotland that they will get something for nothing with a Scottish navy or Scottish armed forces. We are stronger when we are together—that is the United Kingdom and that is what will continue to invest in. There are plenty of troops and plenty of navy in Scotland supporting the security of us all.

Stewart McDonald: The Government promised 12,500 and the Secretary of State has not once come close to delivering 10,000. He promised a frigate factory and his Department has never come close to delivering it. He must know the difference between the frigate itself and the frigate factory promised under the Conservative Government at the time.
Let us look at Denmark, a country that does use multi-year defence agreements. It does not have a £13.5 billion black hole in its equipment plan; it trebled its defence spending a little over one year ago. Why does the Secretary of State not answer the question? We can take the heat out of these exchanges if he takes our advice and moves to multi-year defence agreements. Will we see that progress, as we were repeatedly told we would, when the integrated review is published next month?

Ben Wallace: We are going to have a multi-year integrated review that sets the course for the next few years so that we can settle down and face tomorrow’s threat, not yesterday’s threat. Scottish National party Members always resort to “Let’s save one regiment or the other” rather than discussing what the threat could be to Scotland and how they are going to deal with it. Fundamentally, all these reviews are supposed to happen not annually but over a number of years. The hon. Member  will know that the Treasury has already talked about a four-year spending settlement in the next comprehensive spending review for capital and a three-year settlement for revenue, so it is based on multiple years. Instead of arguing about the difference between a frigate factory and a systems integrator, supplier, subcontractor or supply chain supporter, it would be nice if he would recognise that in Scotstoun and Govan, and in Glenrothes and Fife alone, there are thousands of jobs linked to defence, many of which would not exist if Scotland took a separatist path and abandoned the defence industry and the security of these isles.

Tobias Ellwood: Could the Secretary of State say when this integrated review will actually be published? Following the briefings this morning in No. 10, arguably the biggest threat facing this nation is covid-19, with cases once again rising. We must learn lessons from the first spike. It is clear that the bandwidth—the capacity—of all Governments, including the UK’s, is being tested by this enduring emergency. I have said this before and I say it again: please will he encourage greater use of our senior armed forces to help to advance Whitehall’s strategic thinking, operational planning and delivery, as well as the clarity of the message? They are, after all, trained for crisis management and emergency planning; let us make full use of them.

Ben Wallace: On the timing of the review, it will hopefully report in the autumn—in October/November time. To ensure that our pockets match our ambitions, it is timed to coincide with the comprehensive spending review. Therefore, between the two, we have to make sure that we get the timing right.
On the issue of covid and Defence, we did a fantastic job in the first phase, in my view, through our men and women of the armed forces. We helped to thicken the response across government by command and control, with senior officers and middle-ranking officers going in and helping people. We strengthened the logistics supply chain in the NHS. We provided mobile testing to make sure that testing went to where people were rather than expecting them to get in cars and go up and down motorways. Our response was excellently positioned. Because we were able to make that response, we have already, backed up by people like those in Defence Intelligence, started planning for any second eventuality, either a second wave or not a wave but an alternative challenge, whether that is winter pressures, floods or Brexit. All that is ongoing. I am confident that our men and women will be able to deliver, whatever demands are put on government. I offer them to government on a regular basis. I know that the Prime Minister is incredibly supportive of taking up that offer when the needs fit.

Lindsay Hoyle: We are going to have to speed up the answers.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Operation Arbacia has exposed international terror links running from Iran to Ireland and from Hezbollah to the Real IRA. When will the Government be in a position to proscribe the framework operation of that organisation—namely, the Muslim Brotherhood—here in the United Kingdom, and when will they be able to put that organisation out of business?

Ben Wallace: Hezbollah is proscribed—the political wing as well as the military wing. Real, New and Continuity IRA, and all the other dissident republican groups, are also proscribed. The point that the hon. Gentleman really highlights is that the malign activity of Iran has not stopped. People who think that that does not get back to us on our streets should look at that latest operation, which showed New IRA reaching out in Lebanon or working with Hezbollah and other actors potentially aligned to Iran to potentially inflict murder and death on these streets, either here or in Northern Ireland. We should not forget that. Old habits die hard. These people are now potentially subject to judicial trial, and I cannot do anything to threaten that, but we should point to the facts that he highlights and show that our adversaries link up around the world.

Beirut: Humanitarian Support

Tom Randall: What support his Department has provided to the humanitarian efforts in Beirut.

Ben Wallace: Within days of the explosion, Defence deployed HMS Enterprise, the first foreign ship to reach Beirut, in order to survey the blast zone and share crucial data on hazardous material blocking the port approaches. In addition, Defence provided targeted support for Lebanese armed forces who have been co-ordinating the humanitarian response. This included a field kitchen and tents for 500 people, two medical cold storage containers, and a team of advisers.

Tom Randall: I welcome the MOD’s humanitarian response to the disaster in Beirut, but it is important that aid actually reaches the people who need it and is used for the benefit of the people. For example, a donation of tea by Sri Lanka for the victims of the blast was distributed to the families of presidential guards. Can my right hon. Friend tell me how he is going to ensure that aid reaches the people who need it, and also how important defence diplomacy has been in providing that support?

Ben Wallace: Defence diplomacy is incredibly important in making sure that, as my hon. Friend says, the assistance delivered on the ground gets to where it needs to go. It is also incredibly important in making sure we smooth the way in many countries after a disaster or, indeed, just in countries with a different system. That is why we invest in our defence diplomacy network, including our defence attachés. They were first on the ground in Lebanon, and they managed to make way for a number of our advisers, who are in place now. He is absolutely right: we need to make sure that the aid is always targeted to the right place. The defence attaché network does just that, and it will continue to get our full support.

Veterans: Covid-19 Support

Holly Mumby-Croft: What support his Department has provided to veterans during the covid-19 outbreak.

Johnny Mercer: The MOD has continued to provide a full range of veterans support services throughout the United Kingdom during the covid-19 pandemic. In conjunction with the £6 million provided to the armed forces charity  sector, the Department has helped many veterans contribute to the response to the pandemic through veterans volunteering organisations or working alongside the military contribution in the national interest.

Holly Mumby-Croft: Would my hon. Friend be able to tell me how the Ministry of Defence plans to continue to use the resources of the UK’s armed forces to help tackle the coronavirus pandemic?

Johnny Mercer: We have seen members of the armed forces working alongside our infrastructure across the United Kingdom, whether they have been inserted in local resilience forums or, indeed, the planners we stood up here in London. UK defence has made a significant contribution to the national effort to defeat this virus, and that will continue in the months ahead.

Veterans Welfare Service

Henry Smith: What steps his Department is taking to provide an effective welfare service for veterans.

Simon Jupp: What steps his Department is taking to provide an effective welfare service for veterans.

Alan Mak: What steps his Department is taking to provide an effective welfare service for veterans.

Sarah Atherton: What steps his Department is taking to provide an effective welfare service for veterans.

Johnny Mercer: The Veterans Welfare Service continues to provide the full range of support services to veterans during the covid-19 pandemic.

Henry Smith: Last year, the Crawley armed forces and veterans breakfast club was established, and I have enjoyed meeting it several times since then, most recently on the VJ75 anniversary. What specific support can be provided to such grassroots groups that support our armed forces and veterans personnel?

Johnny Mercer: When LIBOR funding came to an end two years ago, it was replaced by something called the Armed Forces Covenant Fund Trust. It is administered in a professional way, and all charities and such grassroots organisations can now bid into it for grants. I am happy to write to my hon. Friend with details of how we can pass that on to support the great work that those in Crawley do at their breakfast clubs.

Simon Jupp: I would like to thank the Minister for his response. I am sure he will join me in welcoming the Royal Marines family centre at Lympstone, due to open in October, which will support serving Royal Marines, veterans and their families. The Commando Training Centre is a source of enormous pride for East Devon and the many former Marines who live nearby. Could the Minister outline what further support the Government have provided during the pandemic, particularly for those experiencing exacerbated challenges due to lockdown measures, such as mental ill health and alcohol addiction?

Johnny Mercer: I pay tribute to the Commando Training Centre Royal Marines. I was down there in March, and it really is at the cusp, as it were, of family welfare. We have seen under this Government a significant transition to looking after our people through a number of schemes that they are benefiting from. When it comes to extra support, we have moved a lot of our veterans UK services online. We provide an extra £6 million in funding to the charity sector, but of course there is always more to do.

Alan Mak: Captain Tom Moore’s fundraising was an inspiration to us all, reflecting the public’s continued strong support for our veterans. What additional welfare support is my hon. Friend’s Department providing to veterans in Havant and across the country to access vital services and to find work?

Johnny Mercer: There is an unprecedented number of options at the moment for two things that my hon. Friend mentions. One is dealing with mental health challenges and other is around work. On mental health, we brought online earlier this year the complex treatment service, which runs alongside our transition, intervention and liaison service. I am bringing the high intensity service online later this year, and when that is there, I am comfortable that we will have a world-class level of mental health support for our veterans. When it comes to getting people into work, there have never been more initiatives. I am clear that the single biggest factor that improves the life chances of our veterans is having a job. There are some extremely good examples around now, mirrored of course by the civil service with the guaranteed interview scheme.

Sarah Atherton: As a veteran and a member of the Defence Committee, I would like to highlight the work undertaken by female charities, particularly by Salute Her, which is part of Forward Assist. Salute Her is a unique charity that offers and provides support to all three services. Does the Minister agree that, to some degree, women service leavers are a hidden population with certain unmet needs? Will the Ministry commit to working with me to tackle the problems faced by women in the armed forces today?

Johnny Mercer: I thank my hon. Friend for her sterling work. I also thank groups such as Forward Assist for their work on this. I am clear that there are some very good veterans provisions in this country, but there are areas where we need to do a lot better. For example, the experiences of many females who serve are still not what I would like them to be and similarly with females who leave. I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to continue my work with Forward Assist. I have seen the work that it has done recently. We are absolutely determined to make this the best country in the world in which to be an armed forces veteran—both for females and males—and we are determined to continue our work on this.

Sharon Hodgson: The Wigston review of inappropriate behaviours was published in July 2019 and estimated that it would take from five to 10 years to make a measurable difference. Why then is a review taking place of the Wigston review that was published just  over a year ago? Why are charities, community interest companies and external stakeholders excluded from this review of a review?

Johnny Mercer: The reason we are doing that is very clear. I am aware that, within Government, we are very good at doing reviews, but seeing the impact of those reviews in the real world is something else. What I have asked to do with the Wigston review is to find out where we are with it one year on. The review was not for external organisations; it was an internal report that addressed some serious shortcomings. This review is very clearly shining a light on the Department, showing where we are doing well and where we are doing not so well, and I would be more than happy to share that with the hon. Lady.

Julie Elliott: I believe that Sunderland recruits more people into the Army than any other city in the country, so consequently has a lot more issues and high demand for services to veterans. Will the Minister join me in thanking the excellent work of Veterans in Crisis in Sunderland, which does incredibly important work in this area? Will the Government pledge to look at providing more financial support from central Government for services to veterans?

Johnny Mercer: I pay tribute to Sunderland for the extraordinary commitment that it has made to this nation’s defence. We are undoubtedly going through a transition at this time in terms of veterans’ care. For too long we have over-relied on the third sector, and that responsibility is slowly shifting towards the state. I am comfortable that we are meeting that demand at the moment, but it is a dynamic process and I am more than happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss the case in her constituency.

Catherine West: In January this year, the Minister promised to meet Combat Stress and other organisations to assist with their funding that had been cut. What extra assessment has he made since the start of covid on the risks of serious mental health problems among our veterans?

Johnny Mercer: I thank the hon. Lady for her interest in this matter. I speak with the service charities on an almost daily basis, and, as I said in my previous answer, there is no doubt that, when it comes to veterans’ care, a shift is going on in this country at the moment from an over-reliance on the third sector to the state stepping up and assuming that responsibility, which is what I wanted. We have the transition liaison programme and the complex treatment service. There is a very small cohort of people who require a high-intensity service that will come on line later this year. I am absolutely determined to ensure that those three streams, as a pathway, are world leaders in veterans’ mental health care. I am monitoring the figures coming in on a daily basis. We are doing pretty well on meeting our timelines, but obviously there is always more work to do.

Alex Davies-Jones: In June, the Office for National Statistics reported that almost one in five adults is likely to be experiencing some form of depression during the covid-19 pandemic. Given that service and veterans charities have reported an increase in demand since lockdown, and building on the previous  answer, what steps is the Department taking to ensure that every veteran, all serving personnel and every service family member receive the support they need during this very difficult time?

Johnny Mercer: I am acutely aware of the challenges around the denudation of the third sector at this time and the other challenges it faces. I have talked about the veterans mental health care programme, and it is worth mentioning as well that we are looking to launch a strategy with the NHS later this year that clearly highlights a care pathway for service personnel and their families as they go through life: before they join, when they are serving and, crucially, what to expect afterwards, so it is a seamless pathway that both veterans and their families and service personnel can understand, but also that I can use to hold the NHS to account. It provides some wonderful services and I am determined to make sure that continues.

Marie Rimmer: Wesley McDonnell, a 35-year-old veteran, decided to take his own life in the park opposite my home. This brave man served and defended our nation for almost 20 years and, sadly, there are still many others like him. Can the Minister please commit to further improve the spirit of the armed forces covenant by tasking the MOD to develop a health and wellbeing pathway, including the assessment, diagnosis and commissioning of the mental health needs of our brave men and women prior to discharge so that they have the treatment ready?

Johnny Mercer: I thank the hon. Lady for her question and let me be absolutely clear on veteran suicide: any veteran suicide is a tragedy for the individual and for their family, but also for us as an institution. We want people to go away from their time in service enhanced, not damaged, by it. We have got a job of work to do, and we have made significant progress over the past few years; by January, for example, mandatory mental health training will be delivered in every unit on an annual basis—that has never happened before. Through that, alongside a lot of our work with the Royal Foundation, we are changing the environment in which we find ourselves in delivering mental healthcare, resilience and fitness for our people. There is always more to do, but, working with partners, I am determined we will get there.

Hybrid and Cyber-enabled Threats: Covid-19

David Linden: What recent assessment he has made of the UK’s ability to tackle (a) hybrid and (b) cyber-enabled threats in the context of the covid-19 outbreak.

Ben Wallace: The MOD is developing protective measures to rebut, contest and respond to foreign hostile state activity against UK interests at home and abroad. We continue to work with others in Her Majesty’s Government, including the National Cyber Security Centre, to ensure a fused approach. We take the threat seriously, as demonstrated by the £1.9 billion of cyber spending announced alongside the national cyber security strategy.

David Linden: A second wave of coronavirus could be accompanied by a second wave of covid-19 disinformation, which, if not properly dealt with, could lead to an  impact on the uptake in vaccine and ultimately endanger life. What steps are the Government taking to improve the UK’s preparedness against further disinformation and are they co-operating with online platforms to curb the distribution of this material in such circumstances?

Ben Wallace: The Government take disinformation incredibly seriously; that is to say that we focus on disinformation, not misinformation. Disinformation is deliberately laid, often by hostile states, to subvert us or undermine our policy. It is, however, a difficult subject to deal with given how it often uses its agents to deliver that into the mainstream, or indeed through the deep web and into the surface web. That is a challenge; it is not easy for either local government or national Government, and I am sure that the Scottish Government find that similarly challenging. Where we find there to be disinformation, we will of course use all measures that we can to ensure that it is disrupted or that it is pointed out to the audience that it is disinformation. However, I must be very clear that it is not for us to take a view on mainstream media, or on any other type of media’s slant on Government policy. That is the freedom of the press that we enjoy and we are here to protect.

Armed Forces: Recruitment and Retention

Jerome Mayhew: What steps his Department is taking to (a) recruit and (b) retain armed forces personnel.

James Heappey: During the 2019-20 recruiting year the armed forces hit 93% of our inflow target despite covid disrupting the end of the year; recruitment was, however, 31% up from 2018-19. While the armed forces are doing excellent work to continue that success, covid has had an initial impact on training throughflow this year. In the short term, therefore, we expect to see lower throughflow, but early signs are that this will be mitigated by improved retention and, very encouragingly, a good flow of rejoiners.

Jerome Mayhew: As a response to covid, we have seen the unemployment figures start to rise, and that is particularly reflected in the 18 to 24-year-old demographic. Do the Government agree that this is an opportunity to recruit, and perhaps even to meet our full-time trained requirement for the first time since the year 2000? Does the Minister agree that a career in the armed forces represents an excellent career life choice, and that now is a better time than ever to sign up?

James Heappey: Emphatically, yes.

Stephen Morgan: The Secretary of State recently said that
“the greatest asset we have is not our tanks or our aeroplanes, it’s people.”
Yet under the last 10 years of Conservative Government, the numbers of personnel in each of the tri-services have declined. With this in mind, will the Minister make it a priority under the integrated review to address the failure to maintain the strength of our armed forces?

James Heappey: The hon. Gentleman tempts me to pre-empt the decisions of the Prime Minister and the integrated review. However, I can assure him that recruiting targets remain as they were, and that while the sun is shining we will be making hay.

Government Procurement: Covid-19

Marcus Fysh: What steps his Department has taken to support Government procurement during the covid-19 outbreak.

Jeremy Quin: Throughout the pandemic, orders have continued to be made and placed and suppliers paid. The MOD has to date paid £123 million in interim payments to ensure that critical defence outputs can continue uninterrupted, and engaged directly with 600 of its critical suppliers. In addition, as part of the Treasury fiscal stimulus programme, an additional £200 million of funding has been allocated to improve the defence estate accommodation.

Marcus Fysh: Short-term support is great, but companies such as Leonardo in my constituency need long-term certainty on programmes as they fight back from covid. What can the Minister do to provide such certainty?

Jeremy Quin: My hon. Friend is a great advocate for Leonardo and for military helicopters. The publication of the integrated review and, in particular, the defence and security industrial strategy will provide a great deal of certainty. In addition, in the case of Leonardo, through our strategic partnering arrangement we are establishing a joint working group to support future capability and understanding.

Private and Mercenary Military Forces

Alicia Kearns: What recent assessment he has made of the level of threat of private and mercenary military forces to (a) the UK and (b) the UK’s allies.

Ben Wallace: The Department keeps all threats to the UK and its allies under regular review, including those from private and mercenary forces.

Alicia Kearns: My right hon. Friend will agree that many of our adversaries deploy mercenaries and private contractors as cartels to achieve their nefarious goals around the world, particularly in Libya, where the Wagner group acts as a proxy for the Russian state. What steps are being taken in the integrated review, and also multilaterally, to assess and combat this threat?

Ben Wallace: Our adversaries’ use of mercenaries and proxies is growing and undermining stability in the middle east, north Africa and more widely. It is not just Russia’s widely reported use of the Wagner proxy military group in Libya, which of course we condemn, that is causing this instability. We see other actors such as Iran behaving in this way. The UK condemns all destabilising mercenary and proxy military activity. I am afraid I cannot comment on the individual actions we take to counter this threat, as to do so would prejudice their effectiveness.

Overseas Territories: Covid-19 Support

Julie Marson: What support his Department has provided to the overseas territories during the covid-19 pandemic.

Ben Wallace: Since the start of the pandemic, Defence has provided a range of support to Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands, Ascension, Saint Helena and our overseas territories in the Caribbean. HMS Medway and RFA Argus remain in theatre and are standing by to provide logistical and medical support, whether in relation to covid-19 or to providing disaster relief during the hurricane season.

Julie Marson: Afghan interpreters have provided an invaluable service to our armed forces, saving the lives of many British soldiers. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on the Government’s progress on their commitments to the Afghan interpreters?

Ben Wallace: The Home Secretary and I announced at the weekend that the criteria for interpreters to relocate to the UK will be expanded to include those who resigned on or after 1 May 2006 with 18 months or more service on the frontline in Helmand, so that more may come with their families to build a new life in the UK. In addition, the Home Secretary and I committed to look even further at those criteria, and to look at where people suffer intimidation, to see whether those thresholds are in the right place as the peace deal progresses in Afghanistan. Standing by these people is an honourable thing to do. They helped to keep our men and women safe, and this is long overdue.

Special Forces: Independent Oversight

Dave Doogan: If he will make an assessment of the potential merits of establishing an independent body to oversee the operations of the UK’s Special Forces.

Margaret Ferrier: If he will make an assessment of the potential merits of establishing an independent body to oversee the operations of the UK’s Special Forces.

Ben Wallace: It has been the longstanding position of successive Governments not to comment on the operations activity of the UK special forces, as to do so would put personnel and operations at risk. All military operations are overseen and scrutinised by Ministers, who are accountable to this Parliament.

Dave Doogan: Special forces deserve the very best technological support. Swedish technology company Saab announced in July that it intends to establish a centre in the UK for forward combat air systems. The optimal location for that facility is in east-central Scotland, where Saab can benefit not only from clustering with leading industrial partners, such as Leonardo, Babcock and Raytheon, but from our world-class universities and more widely with BAE and Thales in Glasgow. What steps will the Secretary of State take to work with Saab to help it establish in Scotland?

Ben Wallace: An interesting angle for special forces. I am not sure we are going to put a special forces base in Angus. We absolutely want the best technology. We recognise that international partners can also bring that technology, and when we work together in partnership, recognising that British prosperity is as important as anything else, we can get a good result for our forces, who get the best kit. It is also good for our economy, so  that we get the good jobs and skills that we desperately need around the UK and ensure that the science base is strong and able to compete post Brexit.

Margaret Ferrier: The current Government’s adoption of a “no comment” policy prevents any parliamentary scrutiny of the role of UK special forces in defence and security strategy, even when their involvement in operations becomes the subject of media coverage. Will the Secretary of State commit to a review of the “no comment” policy for UK special forces, and enable parliamentary oversight of their activities, placing them on a similar footing to MI5, MI6 and GCHQ?

Ben Wallace: As I say, it is a long-held policy of many Governments not to comment on special forces. They are accountable to me and to the law, and where we see any issues, Ministers will of course intervene. I will not commit to a further review; that is a longstanding policy. Our special forces do an absolutely amazing job saving lives around the world and protecting our citizens. They operate in the covert world to achieve that effect and make sure their lives are not put at risk.

Army Reserves: Covid-19

Kieran Mullan: What support the Army reserves have provided in tackling the covid-19 pandemic.

James Heappey: Some 1,800 Army reserves were mobilised as part of Operation Rescript, the MOD’s contribution to the covid response. From distributing personal protective equipment in the NHS to delivering mobile testing units and helping build the Nightingale hospitals, our fantastic reservists and the unique skills that they bring have been invaluable in helping the country manage the covid pandemic.

Kieran Mullan: I want to begin by thanking my constituent Josh Grant and others from Crewe and Nantwich who were mobilised as part of the Mercian regiment and were willing to step up and help our country at a time of crisis. What can we learn from the use of remote mobilisation as part of our efforts, and what more can we do to support employers and reservists whose deployment time is reduced from what they have already agreed with their employers?

James Heappey: I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to his constituent, and I thank him for his service. As my hon. Friend will appreciate, there is a balance between making the reserve as easily deployable as possible and reservists’ not unreasonable expectation to have some certainty about the duration of their mobilisation. My fantastic predecessor has now accessorised some ermine with his combats. Lord Brigadier Lancaster will be conducting a reserve forces review over the coming months, in which exactly these sorts of issues will receive his attention.

Veterans: Vexatious Claims

Mark Pawsey: What steps his Department is taking to protect veterans from vexatious claims.

Johnny Mercer: We rightly expect the highest standards of our service personnel, and we also owe them justice and fairness. We have introduced the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill to tackle vexatious claims and end the cycle of reinvestigations of our armed forces personnel and veterans. The Second Reading of the Bill will be on Wednesday, and I look forward to the House’s support.

Mark Pawsey: Just as the Government launched their consultation on the Bill, my constituent who had served in the armed forces came to see me. He was concerned to ensure that no service personnel or veterans should be prosecuted for carrying out what they had been trained for. Can the Minister provide him with that reassurance?

Johnny Mercer: I can categorically guarantee and assure all service personnel that, should they operate within the law, which is very clear and well understood, this Government will move beyond the warm words of so many before them and actually legislate to ensure that they are protected from the vexatious and industrial nature of the claims of the past few years. We are very clear, however, that uniform is no hiding place for those who cannot operate within the boundaries we ask them to operate in. The Bill is proportionate and fair in that respect.

Topical Questions

Edward Timpson: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Ben Wallace: I would like to make a statement to the House on recent reports regarding an approach taken by my Department with a media outlet. Managing information is challenging, particularly where hostile states use disinformation to subvert our security interests and our policymaking. As the House will be aware, all Government media and communication professionals must abide by the Government Communication Service’s propriety guidance and the civil service code. The Ministry of Defence is no different. However, I have been deeply concerned that those standards are alleged not always to have been met in the Department. I am treating the allegation with the utmost seriousness. The Ministry of Defence I lead will treat outlets with fairness and impartiality. I am today writing to Defence communicators across the MOD and all services to emphasise that point. I have therefore asked former director general and communications professional Tom Kelly to lead an independent review to look into the allegations that have been made and establish what underlies them. I will report back to the House once the review has been concluded.

Edward Timpson: The Rolls-Royce distributed generation systems plant in Winsford provides mission-critical power generation for our armed forces and is now expanding into other sectors, including the rail industry, to help to maintain its 50 highly skilled jobs, as well as another 100 across the supply chain. Will my right hon. Friend congratulate the Rolls-Royce workforce on their sterling support of our defence capability, as well as perhaps recommending their services to other Government Departments?

Ben Wallace: I am grateful to the Rolls-Royce workforce for their important support for defence and, indeed, during the covid outbreak. The Winsford distributed generation systems plant provides crucial capabilities to our armed forces. I am impressed by the company’s innovative solutions to the challenges we face, for example on sustainability. It is an excellent example of UK engineering and of high-quality jobs. I look forward to seeing Rolls-Royce developing its private and public sector customer base.

John Healey: The House is grateful to the Secretary of State for his impromptu statement. I wonder whether he could place the terms of reference for the Tom Kelly review in the House of Commons Library. Can he confirm this afternoon when he expects that review to be completed?
Just 79 people were invited to yesterday’s battle of Britain commemoration inside Westminster Abbey, rather than the 2,200 planned. Remembrance Day ceremonies in seven weeks’ time are unthinkable without so many of those who have served in our armed forces. Will the Secretary of State say what special guidance he will give to make sure ceremonies at cenotaphs across the country can go ahead safely and respectfully?

Ben Wallace: On the first point from the shadow Defence Secretary, I will of course let him know and put in the Library of the House the terms of reference for the review and when we expect it to be completed.
On remembrance, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is the lead. However, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is an incredibly important for our Department and our men and women in the armed forces to contribute to it. I am working with the DDCMS to make sure we get that guidance. He is right to highlight the issue and I thank him for doing so. Of course, some in the veterans community are the most elderly and vulnerable at present, and we have to ensure that whatever we do we protect them in services of remembrance. I took part in VE Day by ringing a number of veterans who could not attend those events. Talking to numerous second world war veterans is quite a moving experience. One raised a problem about being able to get to an optician and it was useful to ring his local regimental association to try to get him that help. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight this issue. As soon as we have worked out the plans, I will share them with the House.

Lindsay Hoyle: We have Bob Blackman with clearance to land a question.

Bob Blackman: What else for Defence questions, Mr Speaker?
My right hon. Friend has previously referred to Iran’s nefarious use of power via the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, including Hezbollah and the harassment of UK shipping in the strait of Hormuz. Does he agree that unless its influence is curtailed, the IRGC will continue to be a major threat to the safety and security of British forces, and will he address that in the upcoming integrated review?

Ben Wallace: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out the malign activity of the Iran state in using both proxies and, indeed, the IRGC directly either to harass shipping going about its lawful business or to  enable terrorist groups in the region. It does not help any of the peace we seek in that region; nor does it help Iran to join the table of civilised nations, which it aspires to join. The IR will look exactly at those things—at threat; defined around threat—whether that is Iranian malign activity, Russian activity on Europe’s borders or, indeed, terrorist threats around the world. It is important that that leads the review. That is what I have committed to, and right in the middle of that will be Iran and the IRGC.

Tonia Antoniazzi: My constituent David is currently serving in the Army. His brother Dan served for 12 years, fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, but last year Dan killed himself. David wrote to me about the lack of support that Dan had received while he was serving, and said that the Army really does wash its hands of former soldiers once they have left. I have heard the Minister lay out mental health support plans for the future, but David has written twice to the Ministry of Defence about this situation, and only an email from my office has been replied to, nine months after the first correspondence. Is this really the way we should treat our military personnel?

Johnny Mercer: On unanswered communications, I will have an investigation into that this afternoon, but look, there has never been more help available for veterans and service personnel. Each individual suicide is a tragedy, and each one I take personally, but we have to be very careful about consistently driving home this narrative that there is no help available. Should we make it easier to access? Should we have better care pathways? Of course, but the reality is that there is help available and people must speak out.

Mark Menzies: As you are well aware, Mr Speaker, BAE Systems plays an integral role in the economy of Lancashire. May I ask the Secretary of State to continue to push for an integrated approach to acquisition in the air sector so that the groundbreaking work on Tempest, which is vital for the UK to retain its sovereign freedom of action, is at the core of future plans for our outstanding Royal Air Force?

Jeremy Quin: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the RAF must have the very best capabilities to meet future threats. This is naturally a focus of the integrated review, and I can assure him that Lancashire’s critical role in combat air, and the skills it represents, are very much recognised and understood.

Jamie Stone: The Ministry of Defence has a live firing range near Cape Wrath in the north-west of my constituency. Running through the firing range is a road, which, when the military is not using the range, is popular with visitors and locals alike, particularly because Cape Wrath lighthouse, at the top left-hand corner of our country, is one of the great destinations of the United Kingdom. The road is in bad nick. Would the Ministry of Defence be willing to put its hand in its pocket to help get the road done up?

Jeremy Quin: As the hon. Gentleman knows, although that road runs through MOD land, it is an adopted road. Having said that, MOD contractors have filled in potholes and cleared ditches and culverts, and we will see what we can do. I am more than happy to meet the hon. Gentleman.

David Simmonds: Potholes are on the minds of my constituents, but they are not what I have in mind when I ask this question. Will my right hon. Friend give  an update on the support that his Department has provided to the civil authorities in London in dealing with the covid outbreak?

James Heappey: Where to begin? Specialist personnel such as engineers, medical clinicians, logistics planners, advisers, and general duty soldiers and drivers have carried out a variety of tasks to help tackle the covid-19 outbreak in London. They have distributed personal protective equipment; critical care transfer teams for the London ambulance service have assisted in the movement of patients; and they have driven ventilators around London, as well as helping with testing. Finally, they helped build the amazing first Nightingale hospital at the ExCeL.

Afzal Khan: The GMB union estimates that by placing the Fleet Solid Support order with UK shipyards, the Treasury could see up to £285 million of the £800 million contract returned in taxes. The award of the contract could have long-term benefits for the shipbuilding sector and the wider economy, giving companies the confidence to train new apprentices and plan for the future. Will the Government support GMB’s call for the FSS order to be placed in UK shipyards?

Ben Wallace: We have already started a market engagement exercise and have had a healthy response. I intend to announce the procurement timetable for the warships in due course, after market testing has completed. We intend to encourage international partners to work alongside UK firms for the bid, which will build on the success of Type 31.

Flick Drummond: Will the Minister update us on the progress of the digitisation of Veterans UK?

Johnny Mercer: I am delighted to update my hon. Friend. Six months ago we signed a £25 million contract to digitise all the services that Veterans UK provides. I am clear that too many of our people have a poor experience, and the people in Veterans UK have to work in very difficult conditions with lots of paper records and so on. We are putting a lot of money into digitising that, and the experience will be replicated in an application that people can download to their smartphones, and vets care will be in the hands of every veteran in the United Kingdom.

Lisa Cameron: I must first declare an interest, as my husband is a veteran and South Lanarkshire Council’s veterans champion. The council has been doing fantastic work and has now agreed cross-party to implement a guaranteed interview scheme for veterans, as many find it very difficult to gain employment after  leaving the forces. Is that positive development something that the Veterans Minister could take forward with local authorities—indeed, all levels of government across the UK, including potentially this House—to ensure that there is a guaranteed interview scheme for veterans?

Johnny Mercer: I thank the hon. Lady for her continued work on this issue. I am clear that getting veterans into employment is the single biggest factor that improves their life chances when they leave. We now have a system that is light years away from where it used to be. We can always do more. We are bringing in another manifesto pledge to ensure that there is a guaranteed interview scheme for veterans in the civil service, and I am always open to ideas to expand that where we can.

Holly Mumby-Croft: Earlier this year, I met councillors and residents in Kirton Lindsey who want to repurpose Vincent hall  as a community gym. The Department has been incredibly helpful so far. Will it continue to work with me to bring forward that excellent plan?

Jeremy Quin: My hon. Friend is a great advocate for her constituents. We have recently received a bid from the council for that asset of community value and will be contacting it to discuss the offer and the value it would deliver for taxpayers.

John Spellar: May I press the Secretary of State further on the Fleet Solid Support ships? Back in July in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), he said that
“such ships are not highly complex, so once the competition happens and it is placed, I do not think it will take long to build them…British shipbuilding and British yards produce some of the best ships in the world and we should support them as best as we can and ensure our navy gets some great British-made kit.”—[Official Report, 6 July 2020; Vol. 678, c. 660.]
As EU regulations are no longer the excuse—if they ever really were the reason—why will the Secretary of State not commit today not only to build those ships in British yards, but to get a move on?

Ben Wallace: The right hon. Gentleman will know that one of the challenges for our yards is not that they cannot make ships: it is simply that there is feast and famine. Sometimes we go from a pipeline that is full to a pipeline that is empty, and it is incredibly important that we schedule our shipbuilding to make sure we keep as much productivity and throughput in our yards as possible. On the point of the Fleet Solid Support ship, as I have said, we have started discussions and the competition will be issued. He will know that the previous competition was stopped. I am keen to make sure that we get it right for our Royal Navy, and the right hon. Gentleman should wait for the competition to be issued.

Royston Smith: Having served in the UK armed forces, I know what a rewarding career it can be. Covid has created many challenges in terms of not just health, but the hit on the economy and the pressure on employment. Many people are probably now looking at ways to supplement their income. Would my hon. Friend therefore redouble his efforts to encourage young people to consider a career in our reserve forces?

James Heappey: I absolutely would. Hansard will show an earlier pitch for joining the regular armed forces, and now it will show a pitch for joining the reserve armed forces. Over the last few months, we have needed all the skills and experience that our reservists bring, and as the integrated review seeks to draw ever more on the expertise of those serving in the reserve as we expand our capability into new domains, now is a great time for someone to go down to their local reserve centre and join.

Tan Dhesi: The Secretary of State recently stated that the Ministry of Defence’s greatest asset was not tanks or aeroplanes, but its people. However, over the last decade, the Conservative Government have proceeded to make huge cuts to the level of armed forces personnel, and there has been a corresponding decrease in morale within the armed forces, going down from 60% in 2010 to 45% in 2020, so will the Secretary of State commit to finally putting a stop to these cuts to our brave armed forces?

Ben Wallace: The hon. Member is wrong to make a connection between morale and numbers in that way. In my experience, and with the soldiers and sailors I have been meeting recently, morale is high. In my experience in serving, morale is mainly about when someone is used to do things usefully and when they are there on operations. He may like to reflect on the operational decline currently of our activity in our forces, which may well have some effect on morale.
On the issue of numbers, it is important not to reduce any armed forces debate to numbers alone. We need the size of the armed forces to be fit to meet the threat. It may be more. It may be less, but the key thing is to make sure we meet the threat and invest in those men and women we have who are serving.

Tom Hunt: I have recently spoken with the founder of the Combat2Coffee project in Ipswich, which does vital work supporting local veterans’ wellbeing. One of the key issues that he and other veterans are facing is the bureaucratic and sometimes distressing health assessments that they have to go through to get the pensions and benefits that they are entitled to. Will my hon. Friend look at streamlining this process to make sure that veterans living with challenges such as PTSD are not put off accessing the support they deserve?

Johnny Mercer: I pay tribute to the men and women who work at Veterans UK. They have been working with historical records—paper records—for a long time. It could be a fairly unloved part of what the Government do. We are completely changing that and digitising all these records. It is our ambition that veterans’ care is in the palm of people’s hands, on a smartphone application by the end of this Government, and we will make sure that this is the best country in the world in which to be a veteran.

Lindsay Hoyle: In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I suspend the House for three minutes.
Sitting suspended.

Covid-19 Update

Matthew Hancock: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on coronavirus. This deadly virus continues to advance across the world. The World Health Organisation has confirmed that the number of new cases in Europe is now higher than during the peak in March. Here, the latest Office for National Statistics figures indicate 6,000 new infections a day—almost double the previous week.
As the chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser said earlier today, we are seeing a rise in cases across all age groups. That pattern is emerging across the entirety of our United Kingdom. Earlier this afternoon, the Prime Minister held discussions with the First Ministers of the devolved Administrations and the Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland to make sure that, wherever possible, we are united in our efforts to drive this virus down.
We know that the epidemic is currently doubling around every seven days and that, if we continue on that trajectory, we could see 50,000 cases a day by mid-October, so there can be no doubt that this virus is accelerating. We must all play our part in stopping the spread.
I would like to update the House on decisions the Government have taken so far. The first line of defence is, of course, the social distancing that every single one of us has a responsibility to follow. That includes the basics—hands, face and space, and the rule of six—and a crucial part of that is people self-isolating if they are at risk of passing on the virus. People who have tested positive and their close contacts must self-isolate. That is the primary way that we, together, break the chains of transmission.
I know that self-isolation can be tough for many people, especially if they are not in a position to work from home. I do not want anyone having to worry about their finances while they are doing the right thing, so we will introduce a new £500 isolation support payment for people on low incomes who cannot work because they have tested positive or who are asked to self-isolate by NHS Test and Trace. It will start next Monday. It will apply directly in England. The UK Government will be providing funding through the Barnett formula to the devolved Administrations so that similar support can be offered to people in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
As we are strengthening our support for those who self-isolate, we propose to strengthen the sanctions for those who do not. The vast majority of people who are asked to self-isolate do, but the rules are so important that we must ensure that nobody breaks them. We are therefore proposing a new legal duty to self-isolate, again for people who test positive or who are asked to do so by NHS Test and Trace. That is backed by fines of up to £10,000 for repeat offences and serious breaches.
We will step up enforcement too. NHS Test and Trace will make regular checks on those who are self-isolating, and we will crack down on employers who try to prevent staff from following the rules. Over the past few months, self-isolation has been instrumental in breaking the chain and blunting the force of this virus. We know that it works. With winter ahead, we will support everyone to do what is right to help stop the spread of the virus.
The next line of defence is testing and contact tracing. We are doing more testing per head than almost any other major nation. Our daily testing capacity is now at a record high of 253,521, and it continues to grow. On Thursday, we announced that two new Lighthouse labs will be set up in Newcastle and Bracknell, increasing capacity further. As the House knows, alongside that record expansion, demand has gone up, too, so we need to prioritise the tests for those who need them most to save lives, to protect the most vulnerable and to make sure that our health and care services and our schools can operate safely.
Today, we have published our list of where tests are being prioritised, setting out how we will make sure tests are allocated where they are needed most: first, to support acute clinical care; second, to support and protect people in care homes; third, NHS staff, including GPs and pharmacists; fourth, targeted testing for outbreak management and surveillance studies; fifth, testing for teaching staff with symptoms, so we can keep schools and classes open; and then the general public when they have symptoms, prioritising those in areas of high incidence. I want to reinforce this important point: the system relies on people coming forward for tests if—and only if—they have symptoms of coronavirus or have been specifically advised to by a health professional. The testing capacity we have is valuable and we must together prioritise it for the people who need it the most.
The next part of our defence is local action. We have been vigilant in monitoring the data and putting in place targeted local measures so that we can come down hard on the virus wherever we see it emerging. In the summer, when the virus was in retreat, we were able to relax some of the measures that we had put in place, but now as the virus is spreading once more we have had to act.
On Thursday, I updated the House on the changes we are making in parts of the north-east, and on Friday we introduced new rules for parts of the north-west, West Yorkshire and the midlands. We have seen some concerning rates of infection in those areas. Liverpool, for instance, now has more than 120 cases per 100,000 population, and in Warrington it is about 100. As a result, working with local councils, we are putting in place stronger restrictions to protect local people. In parts of Lancashire, Merseyside, Warrington and Halton, we are putting in place new measures from tomorrow. As with our strategy overall, our goal is to protect education and employment as much as possible, while bearing down on the virus. Residents should not socialise with people outside their own households or support bubble. Hospitality will  be restricted to table service only and operating hours will be restricted, so venues must close between 10 pm  and 5 am. From tomorrow in Wolverhampton, Oadby and Wigston and the whole of Bradford, Kirklees and Calderdale, people should not socialise outside their household or support bubble.
We know from experience that local action can work when local communities come together to follow the rules, to tackle the virus and to keep themselves safe. I know how hard that is. We are constantly looking to how we can ensure measures bear down on the virus as much as possible, while protecting lives and livelihoods.
I have heard the concerns about the impact of local action on childcare arrangements. For many, informal childcare arrangements are a lifeline, without which  they could not do their jobs. Today, I am able to announce a new exemption for looking after children under the age of 14 or vulnerable adults where that is necessary for caring purposes. That covers both formal and informal arrangements. It does not allow for playdates or parties, but it does mean that a consistent childcare relationship that is vital for somebody to get to work is allowed.
I would like to thank colleagues from across the House, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan) and the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) and my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) for working with us on this important issue. I hope the change will provide clarity and comfort to many people who are living with these local restrictions. It shows the benefit of cross-party working across the House and listening to concerns as we all do our best to tackle this dreadful disease together.
The virus is spreading. We are at a tipping point. I set out today the measures the Government are taking so far. We are working right now on what further measures may be necessary, and the Prime Minister will update the House tomorrow with any more action that we need to take. This is a moment where we, once again, must come together to tackle this deadly disease. I commend this statement to the House.

Jon Ashworth: I welcome advance sight of the Secretary of State’s statement, and we particularly welcome the action that he has taken on childcare. There can be no doubt that the presentations that we saw today from the chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser were stark and deeply concerning. The Secretary of State yesterday described this, and he repeated it today, as a tipping point. I agree that we are at a perilous moment.
The exponential growth in the virus cannot be ignored. This virus takes lives, and it leaves many with long-term debilitating conditions. Every reasonable action must be taken to save lives, minimise harm and keep our children in school. That means a suppression strategy to drive infections down, so will the Secretary of State reject those siren voices telling him that the virus has lost potency or that we should let it rip through the herd while the vulnerable shield?
We support the local restrictions that the Secretary of State has had to impose, including in Chorley, Mr Speaker, and we understand why he has made that decision. Neither he nor I came into politics to place upon individuals a heavy burden of curtailments on our freedoms, and while we, as the official Opposition, would always welcome greater parliamentary scrutiny of the restrictions, we will continue to work constructively on a cross-party basis where restrictions are necessary to arrest the spread of this virus.
May I also say to the Secretary of State, ever so politely of course, that the tone of his remarks yesterday rather gave the impression that he was blaming people for breaking the rules and allowing the virus to grow? The reality is that people have done everything that they were asked to do. They have missed birthday celebrations, weddings and funerals. They have sent their children  back to school, quite rightly. They have gone back to work. They have done what they were asked to do; in return, Ministers were supposed to fix test, trace and isolate, so that we could, in the words of his own Government adverts,
“get back to the things we love.”
Before the summer, the Government commissioned the Academy of Medical Sciences to scenario plan. It modelled that the R value could rise to 1.7 in September—that is what Imperial College currently estimates it to be—and it recommended significantly expanding the capacity of the test, trace and isolate programme to cope with increasing demands over the winter. Ministers were warned, but pillar 1 and pillar 2 testing capacity did not increase significantly over the summer.
In recent weeks, only half of all tests have been received in less than 24 hours. The Secretary of State has repeated his point about asymptomatic people asking for tests. Will he publish the pillar 2 data, which breaks down how many of the people asking for those tests were symptomatic and how many were asymptomatic? Many parents report going to walk-in centres with their sick children when they themselves had no symptoms and being given a test. Was that a national policy and has that national policy been abandoned?
We welcome the recognition that people need financial support to isolate. We have been saying that for months, but, as I understand it, it is available only to those low-paid workers who are also on benefits and not to all low-paid workers, so will the Secretary of State consider expanding the eligibility criteria?
We have always said that when testing breaks down, tracing breaks down and the virus gets out of control. We are now facing a second wave of infection. We do not want a second wave of ministerial mistakes. All of us want to avoid a further national lockdown. Lockdowns or circuit breaks exact a heavy social and economic price, especially on the poorest and more vulnerable, but controlling the virus and protecting the economy are linked objectives, not in conflict with one another.
I understand that the Secretary of State will tell us that we have to anticipate the Prime Minister’s statement, but can he confirm that during a lockdown, if we have one, he will use the time wisely, expand NHS lab capacity, put public health teams in the lead on contact tracing, quickly assess the university pilots on saliva testing, and validate polymerase chain reaction pool testing, so that when those lockdown restrictions are lifted we can contain the virus in the future?
I welcome what the Secretary of State said about prioritising NHS staff, care workers and teachers, but can he clarify why he has issued guidance to hospital trusts placing restrictions on the numbers of tests that they can carry out, and how he will protect care homes? According to reports today, many care homes have had to wait over two weeks for their test results, and data from Public Health England shows that more than 200 care homes have had an outbreak of covid in the last two weeks. Will he ensure that no one is discharged into a care home without having a covid test? Given where the virus is, what is his advice to the shielding community? What protections is he putting in place for those from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, given that there are disproportionate numbers from those communities in intensive care units today?
None of us wants to see another lockdown or circuit break, and we will of course understand if one becomes necessary, but test, trace and isolate should have been fixed. That failure has left us vulnerable and exposed. Now we must act with speed to save lives and minimise harm.

Matthew Hancock: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his constructive approach in these difficult times. He and I agree that the strategy of suppressing the virus while protecting the economy and education is the right one. In so doing, it is important to act fast so as not to have to act bigger later. I also agree that no one in this House came into office to put in place restrictions like these. He asked about the importance of people following the rules that we have put in place. It is vital that all people follow the rules. The vast majority have done so throughout but, critically, enough have not, meaning that in many cases we have had to make the rules mandatory, rather than relying on people’s sense of civic duty. That is the fundamental judgment behind making self-isolation mandatory, as I announced in the statement.
The hon. Gentleman asked about testing. Of course, we have record testing capacity right now—a record 233,000 tests were done on Friday—and lab capacity will continue to grow. He also asked about the NHS testing capacity, which will also continue to grow. In fact, I had a meeting about that earlier today with Simon Stevens, the head of NHS England. The hon. Gentleman asked about pool testing and saliva testing, which are just two of the many new testing capabilities that we are bringing to bear. He also asked me to ensure that there will be no admissions to care homes without a test. That is our policy: not just no discharges from hospital into care homes without a test, but no admission from anywhere into care homes without a test. That was reiterated in the social care winter plan that we set out on Friday.
I suppose that at the heart of the official Opposition’s response, and at the heart of my response to the hon. Gentleman, is the fact that we are united in wanting to tackle this virus, and in sending the message to everyone across the country that it is critical that we all follow the rules and play our part so that we can suppress the virus while protecting, as much as possible, the things that we love.

Jeremy Hunt: I support the measures outlined by the Health Secretary, which regrettably are both necessary and proportionate. Last week, on World Patient Safety Day, the WHO announced a charter for health worker protection, which asks all WHO member states to commit not only to having adequate supplies of personal protective equipment and mental health support, but to ensuring that there is zero tolerance of violence against health workers. Will he commit the Government to signing up to the charter so that, as we go into a second wave, all our brave frontline workers know that this Government and this House stand four-square behind them?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, I will happily sign up to the proposals that my right hon. Friend has set out. As the House well knows, his long-standing and international work on patient safety is very impressive. We must ensure that in these difficult times we protect our care  workers and frontline staff—including, if I may say so, the staff at the testing centres—and that we reiterate once again our commitment to patient safety.

Lindsay Hoyle: I welcome back Philippa Whitford.

Philippa Whitford: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As the chief medical officer and chief scientific advisers said this morning, the UK is in danger of losing control, as we have seen happen in many countries in Europe. As the Secretary of State has said, we could be facing 50,000 new cases a day by mid-October, leading to about 200 deaths a day by mid-November. No one should be in any doubt that it is a mistake to think that the virus has changed and that it will not kill people if we get back to where we were in April.
I agree utterly with the Secretary of State that we need to take action now, and that action is personal; every single person has the responsibility to stick to the rules—to wear a face covering, wash their hands and keep their distance. I remind Members in this House, because I have been watching it from outside, that that is not always what is on show in this Chamber, and we all have a responsibility to set an example. That responsibility extends to self-isolating, whether we have symptoms, we are proven, we are a contact or we have returned from a high-risk country. If we are meant to be isolating, we need to do it. I really welcome the fact that the Government are finally putting in place financial support for people on low incomes, who might be tempted not to isolate because they simply do not have any other opportunities to feed their family.
However, it is crucial that we have a fast and responsive test and trace system, so I have a couple of questions for the Secretary of State. In recent weeks, he has talked about aiming to have 500,000 tests a day by the end of October. Given the surge we are facing, does he envisage being able to accelerate that and bring it forward? Secondly, on 8 and 15 September he committed to me that he would be increasing funding to expand NHS testing, but, as we heard from the shadow Secretary of State, NHS trusts in England have been told that funding is capped and they are not to expand covid testing. Surely this is resource that we want to use and make available.

Matthew Hancock: I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Lady’s comments about the need for action across the UK. We have seen in Scotland, as in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, that the number of cases has, sadly, risen sharply. I welcome her physically back to the Chamber, in demonstrating this unity of purpose across the four nations of the UK. If we can bring forward the goal of 500,000 tests per day from the end of October, of course we will do so; we are pushing that as hard as we can and are on track to meet that commitment. As she says, that is for across the UK, so it includes the tests done by the Scottish NHS. I know that conversations have taken place between the NHS in Scotland and the NHS in England to work on making that happen. We are expanding NHS testing, including the funding. In the funding letter that went out to the NHS for the second half of the financial year—for the cover in winter—we set out that that includes the commitment to support financially the testing done in the NHS in England.

Chris Grayling: I welcome the measures my right hon. Friend has announced today, as he seems to be getting the balance absolutely right, and I praise him for the job he is doing. However, we have to remember that there are huge regional variations in the impact of the virus at the moment and many parts of the country have much lower infection rates. There are huge consequences of this virus for people in our communities, including on their mental health, and, in particular, for the younger generation, who are paying a very heavy price. Given those regional variations, may I say, in the full knowledge of the pressures he is facing, that I do not believe the case for further national measures has yet been made?

Matthew Hancock: There is an important balance between the measures we need to take across the country as a whole, and the further and stronger measures in local areas. My right hon. Friend will have seen, particularly in the past week, that we have expanded some of those local interventions to cover bigger geographies, but he is right to say that there are some parts of the country where, thankfully, the number of cases is still very low. So the balance between what we do nationally and what we do locally is as important as the balance in terms of what we do overall.

Munira Wilson: I am sure the Secretary of State will agree that one of the greatest tragedies of the first wave of this dreadful virus was the loss of life in and the impact on our social care sector, and we must learn the lessons from that as we head into a second wave. While he has emphasised in the media and in his statement the prioritisation of testing in care homes, could he explain why a number of care homes are still reporting a two-week delay in receiving test results? Will he clarify whether the prioritisation also includes staff providing care in people’s homes?

Matthew Hancock: Care home testing is incredibly important. We have brought down some of the response times, and I am glad to report to the House that, since last week, when we debated the very sharp rise in demand, including among asymptomatic people, that demand has come down somewhat, and the pressures are a little lower on the testing system as a whole. That does not mean that we do not want to increase capacity further—of course we do. It is very important that we have tests available for all vulnerable people, whether they live at home or in a care home.

Greg Clark: The scientific evidence is that covid is detectable by test within seven days of someone being infected, so why should people who have been made to self-isolate not be tested seven days after a possible infection and released if they test negative?

Matthew Hancock: The incubation period before which the virus can present itself is still estimated to require 14 days of self-isolation. If we could bring that figure down, I would be the first to be pleased to do so. As with our decision to take to 10 days the period for which somebody who has tested positive must self-isolate, this is a critical point, and we must rely on the scientific evidence. If my right hon. Friend has further scientific evidence, I would be happy to look at it.

Mary Foy: Does the Secretary of State think that a £10,000 fine will act as a disincentive to poorer people getting a test?

Matthew Hancock: We have put in place the extra £500, in addition to other income that people are getting, to support people on low incomes to self-isolate. If someone who is on a low income has symptoms and wants to know whether they have the virus, the result of having a positive test is that they will get the extra £500, and then of course they have to self-isolate. I am confident that people will come forward and do not only the right thing for society but the right thing for them, to find out the cause of their illness if they have symptoms.

Harriett Baldwin: I thank the Secretary of State for the extra £2.5 million for Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust and the extra money for the social care system in Worcestershire. Can I clarify what the advice is these days for people who would normally have fetched up at A&E? Is it to call 111 in every instance?

Matthew Hancock: Yes. We are moving to a system where the advice is to call 111 First and then go to A&E, or call 999 if it is an emergency and you need an ambulance. That system will not only help people to be triaged for the right treatment, which may be to see a GP, go to an urgent treatment centre or go to A&E. It will also help the emergency department to know that people are coming. The combination of the two is critical. We are rolling this out over the next couple of months, and we aim to have it in place across the country by 1 December.

John Cryer: Despite what the Secretary of State has said today, we are still hearing myriad stories of people—our constituents—being unable to get tested. The worst story I have heard is a constituent who was told to travel 600 miles to Aberdeen to get a test. Why is that the case, when we are constantly told by Ministers that there is no problem?

Matthew Hancock: Nobody has addressed the problems and challenges in the testing system more than me. We need to resolve those problems, as we have in very large part resolved the problem of people being sent long distances. I would love to know the example that the hon. Gentleman cites, because I am told that that problem in the system was fixed last week, and if there is a more recent example, I want to know about it.

Simon Fell: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to the expanding of testing, which is clearly key to identifying the virus and stopping its spread. I direct him to an article in The Times today about private businesses expanding testing capacity. BAE in my constituency is testing almost 6,000 employees on a weekly basis and is keen to expand that into the community. I know that my right hon. Friend has already started to engage on this issue, but I urge him to do everything he can to cut through any red tape, expand such testing as quickly as possible and use every tool at our disposal.

Matthew Hancock: Of course we support businesses and others who want to get tests outside the NHS Test and Trace system; last week we published a paper on how they can go about doing that, and we encourage businesses to do that for their employees. The critical thing is that  if people test positive, that data must, by law, flow to Public Health England so that we can do the necessary contact tracing and enforce the isolation that is going to be mandatory from next Monday. We strongly support that sort of action, whether it is taken by employers or, indeed, the University of Cambridge, which proposes to do the same for its students.

Kim Johnson: Liverpool incidence rates have increased quickly and we are now on the precipice of local lockdown. There has been an increase of 247 cases on the previous week’s figures and the latest weekly rate in Liverpool is now 120 per 100,000, as the Secretary of State mentioned. What additional resources does the Secretary of State plan to provide to Liverpool and other local authorities to assist them in dealing with further localised outbreaks?

Matthew Hancock: The hon. Lady asks an important question. We are putting more testing into Liverpool, notwithstanding the challenges in testing capacity, because it is exactly the sort of place where we need to put that testing. We are also bringing in £500 of support for everybody on a low income who has to self-isolate, whether they have tested positive themselves or are a contact of somebody who has tested positive and have been contacted through NHS Test and Trace. I support the hon. Lady in her work as the local representative to explain to her constituents in Liverpool, Riverside how important it is to follow the rules.

Simon Clarke: The whole country will recognise the unenviable choices that the Government face at this time. Whatever further measures are in contemplation for the days ahead, may I issue a plea for proportionality? Does the Secretary of State agree that human beings in a free society must have a right to some social contact as they go about their daily lives, even at this difficult time?

Matthew Hancock: I agree with that 100%. We put in place support bubbles for single households—those who live alone—during the lockdown precisely for that reason. I remember having a Zoom with a whole load of people and somebody said, “I haven’t seen anybody in person for four months,” and I thought that could not be good or right. We have put in place support bubbles for single households for that purpose and of course bear such impacts in mind when we take the decisions we take.

Barry Sheerman: I am sure the Secretary of State will agree that we in Kirklees and West Yorkshire are working hard as a team to meet the crisis in these uncertain times, with tens of thousands of students now moving across the country. Will he bear in mind the fact that our system relies on fit and healthy NHS staff? The crisis we are in is getting worse, and if we get a virulent flu virus this winter, which is coming soon, and that knocks out a large percentage of NHS staff, we are going to be in serious trouble. A significant percentage of NHS workers are refusing to get a flu jab; what can we do about that?

Matthew Hancock: The hon. Gentleman and I have occasionally tangled across these Dispatch Boxes, but I wholeheartedly support what he said and agree with him entirely. It is policy that everybody in the NHS should get a flu jab. The NHS flu programme has  already started to roll out and will shortly roll out more broadly. Although it is not mandated this year, I can see no good reason why somebody in the NHS should not get a flu jab, unless they have a very specific clinical condition. We look to all NHS staff to provide leadership in their communities by getting the flu jab. It is free for everybody who works in health and social care and they should get it.

Alec Shelbrooke: It was brought to my attention by parents this weekend that some Leeds City Council schools in my constituency are telling parents that if their child has an upset stomach or general malaise they need to go home, isolate and not come back to school until they have had a negative test. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is not NHS England advice, and puts unwarranted pressure on the test and trace system? Does he agree that Leeds City Council should get a grip on this immediately?

Matthew Hancock: I am afraid I do agree. All councils, including Leeds City Council, should make it clear that if students have coronavirus symptoms—and we all know what they are: a new continuous cough, a temperature or a loss of taste and smell—they should come forward for a test. If they have symptoms of another illness—not coronavirus symptoms—they should not come forward for a test. We have set this out very clearly once again in the prioritisation document that we have published today, and I hope that everyone will follow it.

James Murray: Schools that become aware of a covid-19 case have been encouraged to take swift action and contact the dedicated advice service introduced by Public Health England. However, several primary school heads in my constituency have reported that the service appears to be overwhelmed, with significant delays in Public Health England getting back to schools with advice. Can the Secretary of State tell me what the average waiting time is between a school contacting Public Health England and its receiving the advice that it needs?

Matthew Hancock: I do not have those figures, but I would be very happy to look into specific cases, because the speed of turnaround in the instance that the hon. Gentleman describes is very important.

Anthony Browne: My right hon. Friend and his scientific advisers are absolutely right—the virus is not getting any weaker—but doctors, including many in my constituency of South Cambridgeshire, have made great progress in the treatment of coronavirus, and social distancing means that viral loads are less, making cases less severe for many people. Can he tell me what estimate he has made of the impact of these developments on the fatality rates for those who are affected?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, of course. My hon. Friend represents one of the finest hospitals not just in the country but in the world. The clinicians who work at Addenbrooke’s and across the country have improved the treatment of coronavirus. We know that treatment with dexamethasone has reduced the death rate. We know that, because of earlier oxygenation and later intubation, that has reduced the death rate. There is also progress with remdesivir.  Nevertheless, while that has reduced mortality for those going into hospital, the virus remains deadly, so unfortunately we have to take measures to stop its spread, not least because we can either take measures now or we will end up with a much bigger problem, still having to take measures later.

Rupa Huq: Top-rated medical research has continuously linked vitamin D levels with covid incidence. In Norway, where people have high amounts, cases are rare, whereas here, most Brits are deficient. It is rarely found in food, and the main source—sunlight—is about to disappear, with a possible winter NHS crisis on the way. Will the Secretary of State follow the science, as there is no vaccine in sight, and seek to prescribe supplements on the NHS, or at least run a public information campaign? People need something positive now that the nights are drawing in.

Matthew Hancock: Vitamin D is one of the many things that we have looked into, to see whether it reduces the incidence or impact of coronavirus. I have seen reports that it does, so we put it into a trial. Unfortunately, the results were that it does not appear to have any impact. That is the latest clinical advice, which is always kept under review.

Graham Brady: Does my right hon. Friend agree that balancing the measures to tackle covid with the other health consequences, such as cancer patients going undiagnosed or not being treated in time, and the economic and social consequences is a political judgment, and does he further agree that political judgments are improved by debate and scrutiny?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, I do. I come to this Dispatch Box as often as possible. I am very sorry that I was unable to come on Friday to discuss Friday’s decision, but the House was not sitting. I agree with my hon. Friend that, essentially, the more scrutiny, the better; that is my attitude. I am very happy to continue to work with him and with you, Mr Speaker, to ensure that that scrutiny can be done at the speed that is sometimes required for these decisions to be made.
Finally, on my hon. Friend’s substantive point, of course minimising the impact on the economy and on education is critical, but there are impacts on the NHS of covid cases going up—not just the need to try to minimise the negative impact that comes from restricting other treatments, such as cancer, that happened in the first peak, but the problem of the NHS operating with high levels of covid cases. Within the NHS, a higher number of cases itself has an impact on the care available for all the other conditions that we need to treat, but I look forward to working with you, Mr Speaker, to make sure that we have continued scrutiny.

Lindsay Hoyle: So do I if that happens.

Stella Creasy: I am delighted to have just heard the Secretary of State’s previous answer, because, in a former life, he and I both served on the Public Accounts Committee, so I know that he will understand that every taxpayer living in a community facing a lockdown or unable to get a test  deserves a straight answer on whether his Department has imposed a financial penalty or withheld payments for the many voided tests undertaken by Randox. Will he give an answer to that question today?

Matthew Hancock: Randox delivers a very significant number of tests every single day—it is a growing number. In fact, it is currently outperforming the allocation that we have asked it to deliver, and I pay tribute to every single person who works at Randox for the work that they have done and the part that they have played in keeping people safe. Everybody who gets a Randox test result, just like every other test result, has more information that they can use to keep themselves safe, and we have more information that we can use to try to keep the whole of society safe.

Andrew Percy: I thank the Secretary of State for his Department’s allocation to Scunthorpe General Hospital last week. I also wish him well with the ongoing work for some extra funding for Goole and District Hospital. On tests for schools, the feedback I have had from schools in my constituency has been very positive about the 10 tests with which they have been issued. Will he continue to seek to grow that number and look in particular at a lot of the rural schools where getting access to a test is particularly difficult due to transport issues?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, giving 10 tests to all schools across the country has proved very popular, according to the feedback that I have had. I am very glad to hear that that is true in my hon. Friend’s part of the world as well. Of course we will continue that, with the right level of tests being sent out to the right types of schools in the right places, and I will make sure that we take into account rurality as one of those factors.

Tonia Antoniazzi: On Friday afternoon, the Department for Work and Pensions informed Jobcentre staff that, from today, they have to reintroduce face-to-face 10 minute work search interviews with customers. So, Secretary of State, in the light of the rising number of cases and with everyone meant to be playing their part, is this really a sensible approach to be taking?

Matthew Hancock: One of the good things about where we are now compared with where we were in March is that, in many areas, we are better prepared. We are better prepared in the NHS. We are better prepared in social care with the winter plan that we put out last week, and many employers and services, such as jobcentres, have been able to develop covid-secure approaches, which means that they can get on with the things that they need to do. The specifics of the question, of course, are for my right hon. Friend the Work and Pensions Secretary, but the principle of how we, as a society, manage to do more things while keeping ourselves covid secure is one that, thankfully, we have been able to develop over the past six months.

Jason McCartney: I very much welcome the Health Secretary’s approach not only to save lives, but to protect livelihoods. I acknowledge and welcome his announcement on the new exemption for childcare. Can he confirm what those new arrangements are, and confirm that grandparents and others in my  Colne Valley constituency—part of Kirklees, which goes back into local restrictions tomorrow—will be part of that exemption?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, I can confirm that. The exemption means that, for instance, if grandparents look after children to provide childcare, where that is a continuous childcare relationship—that is the legal definition—that will be exempt, in the same way that paid-for childcare will be exempt. This therefore does not allow for people to have children staying with others and, as I said in my statement, parties and play dates. It allows, where a family member or other undertakes unpaid childcare that is akin to paid childcare, that they can be exempted. I know how much many people rely on this to be able to get to work, and I am really glad we have been able to make this progress.

Bill Esterson: Those of us who represent areas that face additional restrictions as of tomorrow are happy to reinforce the messages, but we need the Secretary of State’s help, don’t we, Mr Speaker? The difference between the instruction of households that they “must not go and visit each other” as opposed to saying they “should not go to the pub together” is one of the ambiguities that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) has highlighted right from the start of this crisis. It is an ambiguity that is exploited by the virus, but it is also exploited, sadly, by a small but important minority of people in this country. Will he clear up these ambiguities and improve the chances that everybody will comply with these necessary new restrictions?

Matthew Hancock: The message that the hon. Member should be putting out and that I will set out is that, where we say that people should not socialise outside their household, that is the approach that people should take. He makes a detailed point underneath that, but the top-line message to all of his constituents is, no, they should not be socialising with people outside their household.

Shaun Bailey: I have been contacted by a large number of constituents over the weekend concerned about the fact that a large minority of people in retail settings are still not wearing face coverings. Most retailers are making sure that they follow the rules and they enforce them, but what support can the Department give, across government and at local level, to ensure that when it comes to the small minority, we can enforce these rules and ensure, as the Secretary of State quite rightly said, that we are all in this together and we will stop the spread together.

Matthew Hancock: I agree with my hon. Friend that more enforcement is, sadly, necessary to ensure that these rules are followed across the board, because if people follow the rules across the board, it will be easier to get a grip on the virus and the overall impact on the economy and on education, for instance, will be lower. So that is the approach that we are taking both in the example he cites and more broadly.

Alan Brown: The Secretary of State spoke about a four-nation approach, but in reality there has not been a Cobra meeting since 10 May. It has taken the First Minister of Scotland to  push for this to get a UK-wide Cobra meeting set up, and that undermines the four-nation approach. Does the Secretary of State agree that if we have a four-nation partnership, Scotland needs the powers and the financial levers to be able to implement its own local decisions, such as targeted furlough support for the hospitality and aviation industries and perhaps help for the areas under local lockdown?

Matthew Hancock: I would urge the hon. Gentleman to take a lead from the SNP Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford). These are very serious times, and since the Prime Minister had a conversation with the First Ministers of all the devolved Administrations this morning, as I set out, and I have regular and frequent engagement with all the other Health Ministers—in fact, I was having a text exchange with my Scottish opposite number just before coming into the Chamber—I think the most important thing is that we take as united an approach as possible. That is the approach that the Scottish Government are taking, and we are working closely with them.

Marco Longhi: I also welcome the statement that the Secretary of State has brought to the House today, particularly the emphasis he places on fighting this common enemy as one united front. What assurances can he give the House that our care homes will protected, with lessons learned from the first wave of covid-19?

Matthew Hancock: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Right across the board, it is critical that we are constantly learning about both what went well and what did not go well. The social care winter plan that was published last week has been developed with the sector. I visited a care home on Friday and heard from the people there about what they have learned about how policy is developed to make sure that we protect people in care homes as much as possible.

Tulip Siddiq: Last year, I was faced with every parent’s nightmare as I rushed my small baby to the children’s A&E at the Royal Free Hospital in my constituency because he was not breathing. The doctors and nurses saved his life. The same children’s A&E will now be closed temporarily from next month because of the pressure that covid-19 will put on the NHS over winter. Will the Secretary of State give me a cast-iron guarantee that our local NHS will be given all the resources it needs so that this closure is strictly temporary and the children’s A&E service can be restored as soon as possible?

Matthew Hancock: Of course I would be very happy to work with the hon. Lady on this question. We do have to make sure that our hospitals are covid-secure. I would be happy to meet her to discuss the specifics at the Royal Free.

Edward Leigh: The trouble with authoritarianism is that it is profoundly inimical to civil liberties. It is also increasingly incompetent. It relies on acquiescence, and acquiescence for lockdowns, particularly national ones, is draining away. For instance, if students are told not to go to pubs, they will simply congregate in rooms, which is even worse. If the Secretary   of State does not listen to me, will he at least listen to Professor Mark Woolhouse, a professor of infectious diseases? He wrote in The Sunday Telegraph:
“It is profoundly disappointing that six months into this pandemic, having rejected every alternative proposed, we keep coming back to lockdown”.
He suggests—[Interruption.] I am trying to be constructive. He suggests that we rely on encouraging people to look after themselves, to protect the vulnerable and to take responsibility for their own lives. That is the Conservative way.

Matthew Hancock: As a Conservative, I believe in as much freedom as possible consistent with not harming others. One of the sad things about this virus is that because of asymptomatic transmission, if people put themselves at risk of catching coronavirus and get ill, they are not only putting themselves at risk but putting others at risk as well. That is the Conservative principle behind protecting the health of the nation in the face of this pandemic.

Tony Lloyd: The Secretary of State will accept that a near-one-week turnaround for tests for people working in our care homes is not looking after our elderly. Can he be precise: when will we get the 24-hour turnaround that we must have if we are to keep the elderly safe in those homes?

Matthew Hancock: We have protected the number of tests in care homes. The challenge is that when the system is running hot and the number of tests going through is very close to capacity, that can have an impact on turnaround times. We saw that in the past couple of weeks. Thankfully, those turnaround times are coming down again, as well as our managing to protect the over 100,000 tests a day that go to social care. While some people may call for other areas to be prioritised—for instance, the testing of children—the most important thing is that we protect those who are most vulnerable to this virus, and the most vulnerable live in our care homes.

Pauline Latham: I know the Secretary of State is very keen to get more tests. SureScreen in my constituency has developed an antigen test that is ready in 15 minutes. It will be able to ramp up its production to 1 million by November, rising to 2 million a week. Will he please look at its test and make use of this expertise? I think that he will be going to a Cobra meeting tomorrow, so will he explain to the Prime Minister that we live in a democracy, not a dictatorship, and we would like a debate on this in this House?

Matthew Hancock: There absolutely will be a debate in this House on the measures that we have to use. We have to move very fast, and I am very happy to talk to my hon. Friend about SureScreen in her constituency.

Wayne David: In south Wales, Caerphilly and Rhondda Cynon Taf are in local lockdown, and people in those boroughs cannot leave to go on holiday. Those areas will be joined by four others tomorrow evening. The Welsh Government have said that those would-be holidaymakers should have a full refund if  they are prevented from going on holiday. Will the Secretary of State say emphatically that those people must have a full refund of the cost of their holidays, as a policy of central Government?

Matthew Hancock: I am very happy to work with the hon. Gentleman and others to make sure people get the fair treatment they deserve.

Bernard Jenkin: At a time when we do not yet have the world-beating track and trace system or enough tests because of logistical problems, why are the Government excluding senior military commanders from key decision making and preventing them from bringing to bear their logistical capabilities?

Matthew Hancock: On the contrary, the military’s support has been absolutely brilliant in expanding the testing system—test and trace—and it is engaged in the development of our vaccine roll-out plans. The work that senior military personnel have done is absolutely first rate.

Duncan Baker: My constituency of North Norfolk, and Norfolk more widely, has seen some of the lowest infection rates in the entire country thanks to the dedication and sacrifice that many people have made in my area. Can the Secretary of State assure me that any further major national restrictions will reflect the low levels of infection in constituencies such as mine?

Matthew Hancock: My hon. Friend makes an important point. He represents the oldest constituency in the country, so this is an important matter for him and his constituents. This comes back to the central point that it is critical to get the right balance between the measures we take nationally and those we take locally, according to local rates of infection.

Liz Twist: There will be a number of relieved parents in my constituency because of the change in informal childcare. I have spoken to primary and secondary headteachers across Gateshead, and it is clear that their difficulty in obtaining tests and getting results quickly is causing real disruption for schools and not allowing them to take swift action to stop onward transmission. I note that the Secretary of State listed teachers in his statement, but will he do more to ensure that tests are available for teaching staff and that results are available more quickly?

Matthew Hancock: Of course I am working to exactly that end. If somebody has the symptoms of coronavirus, they should self-isolate even if they cannot get a test. I understand how frustrating that is, and I am working as hard as I can to try to get those turnaround times as fast as possible.

James Davies: The self-isolation support payment of £500 comes into force next Monday for those on lower incomes who cannot work from home and stand to lose income. Of course, it is being distributed through local councils in England. Given that local government is a devolved matter, has my right hon. Friend had conversations with the Welsh Government about replicating the policy in Wales?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, the UK Government will be providing the funding so that the devolved Administrations are able to put similar support in place. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster spoke to the First Minister of Wales over the weekend to ensure that in Wales people can get the level of support that we are introducing in England.

Neale Hanvey: The Secretary of State is quite right: these are serious times, and we require serious answers, so can he answer the following? It has prioritised VIPs over the public; it has a failure rate of over 90% on testing targets; it has the highest voided tests of any lab, including 12,401 in a single day; it has Conservative MPs on the payroll, and it was found by the National Police Chiefs’ Council to have committed the most serious breach of standards by manipulating forensic tests. Why, then, was Randox Laboratories judged an appropriate company to be handed a £133 million contract to the exclusion of all others—or will the Secretary of State again resort to a churlish response, proving that the rules do not apply to this increasingly lawless Government?

Matthew Hancock: I implore the hon. Gentleman to support all those who are working so hard to deliver the tests that people need. Every other question on testing is, “Can we have more tests, please?” and we hear stories about just how much these tests are needed. I think we should be there supporting the people who are doing the testing.

William Wragg: My right hon. Friend has many invidious choices to continue to make, but, further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady), the wider health implications of covid-19 cannot be overstated. They include delayed cancer diagnosis, missed stroke and heart attack treatments, and the cancellation of elective surgery. Will my right hon. Friend therefore confirm that the Nightingale hospitals will be brought back online to minimise impacts on wider healthcare?

Matthew Hancock: The Nightingale hospitals are there, ready to go if they are needed. They are currently mothballed and can be reopened very rapidly. We are working incredibly hard with the NHS to ensure that this time around there is the absolute minimum disruption to other treatments, but of course the first, best minimisation of impacts on other treatments is not to have a sharp rise in the number of people going to hospital with covid. Our plan learns from what happened before. Of course there is the much more widespread capability for testing, both in the NHS and outside, thanks to the hard work of companies such as Randox and others. That means that we will be better placed than last time around to keep the rest of the NHS running, but it does not mean that we can rest easy in terms of rising cases, because of course the easiest way for the NHS to operate is to keep covid cases low.

Tim Farron: Over the weekend I have been listening to headteachers from around the south Lakes, who tell me that they are under increasing pressure, with teaching staff, teaching assistants and others off work, struggling to book a test slot. Some have been advised to travel as far as Brighton, a 10-hour round trip, and some pupils are off school for 10 days waiting for a test of their own. Our teachers are doing their job brilliantly. Is it not time that the Government did theirs and provided a testing scheme that works?

Matthew Hancock: I would be very interested in the examples, especially of people being sent long distances, because, as I said earlier, the information I have been given is that that problem has been resolved. I am working incredibly hard to resolve all the other problems and to bring to bear the record testing capacity that we have.

Steve Brine: Again, I support my right hon. Friend and his statement today, but I echo calls for what comes next to reflect the reality on the ground in areas such as mine, where rates are way down on the England average. Linked to that, as we move into what is clearly the next phase of this battle, will he look at a much more devolved and decentralised test, track and trace system? I think “keep Winchester safe” will have much more cut-through with my constituents, and that is surely better managed in Hampshire.

Matthew Hancock: Yes. We need the scale of the national system and the resonance of the local system and the local knowledge. We are increasingly driving things in that direction, and I would love to talk to my hon. Friend, who is incredibly knowledgeable in these matters, to see what more we can do.

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: I thank the Secretary of State for his and his officials’ incredible efforts over the last few days that have meant he was able to make the statement today that informal childcare will sit alongside formal childcare to allow those selfless grandparents across the north-east and elsewhere where local restrictions have to be brought in to make sure, out of the goodness of their hearts and the love of their families, that their sons and daughters can go to work—often low-paid, seasonal work with difficult hours. I thank him for that. Does he also agree that it is for all of us to be selfless, not selfish, as we try to get to grips with the second wave?

Matthew Hancock: That is a good point on which to end, because my right hon. Friend has worked incredibly hard over the last four or five days to try to ensure that we find a way to protect people who use informal childcare without unnecessarily harming others by widening the exemption beyond what is needed. It is important to control the virus and keep listening to people as to how best to do that, and she has helped enormously. Her final point is critical, which is that we all have a role to play in taking seriously the rise in cases and hospitalisations that we have seen and making sure that we are all doing our bit to control coronavirus.

Point of Order

Tan Dhesi: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In response to the lockdown earlier this year, the Government made significant changes to the operation of our railway network, which cost not millions but billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money. After being in place for almost a quarter of a century, the Government announced in various media outlets today that rail franchises are to be ended and replaced by emergency recovery measures agreements.
In line with what seems to be common Government practice, at no point, despite being asked on numerous occasions, has the Transport Secretary, or any Government Minister for that matter, come to the House to make a statement on any of those issues. Instead, they have preferred to make announcements remotely through media outlets and press releases.
Mr Deputy Speaker, given that the Government keep talking about parliamentary sovereignty but seem set on disrespecting the House, what influence could you bring to bear to stop such abuse of the House and to stop the Government failing to make major policy announcements to the House? What influence can you bring to bear to ensure that the Transport Secretary comes to the House to announce such major transformational changes to our transport network?

Nigel Evans: I thank the hon. Gentleman for notice of his point of order. I note that there is a written statement from the Secretary of State for Transport on today’s Order Paper, which it appears may shed light on the Secretary of State’s policy. It is regrettable that such a major policy statement was made to the press before it was made available to the House. Mr Speaker has always been clear that such statements should be made to the House and that Members should have the opportunity to question Ministers on their policies. I thank the hon. Gentleman once again.
The sitting is suspended for three minutes for sanitisation purposes.
Sitting suspended.
Virtual participation in proceedings concluded (Order, 4 June.)

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

[Relevant Documents: First Report of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, Unfettered Access: Customs Arrangements in Northern Ireland after Brexit, HC 161, and the Government response, HC 783; and Oral evidence taken before the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on 16 September 2020, on Brexit and the Northern Ireland Protocol, HC 767.]
Further considered in Committee
Mr Nigel Evans in the Chair

Nigel Evans: I should explain that, in these exceptional circumstances, although the Chair of the Committee would normally sit in the Clerk’s chair during Committee stage, in order to comply with social distancing requirements, I will remain in the Speaker’s Chair, although I will be carrying out the role not of Deputy Speaker but of Chairman of the Committee. We should be addressed as Chairs of the Committee, rather than as Deputy Speakers.

Clause 11 - Modifications in connection with the Northern Ireland Protocol

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nigel Evans: With this it be convenient to take the following:
Amendment 45, in clause 40, page 31, line 16, at end insert—
“(d) the need to maintain the necessary conditions for continued North-South cooperation in—
(i) the areas of environment, health, agriculture, transport, education and tourism, energy, telecommunications, broadcasting, inland fisheries, justice and security, trade and business development, higher education and sport, and
(ii) any other area that may be agreed by a body established under the provisions of the Good Friday Agreement.”
This amendment would aim to build into the Bill the need for ministers to maintain the conditions necessary for North-South co-operation in areas specified under the Good Friday Agreement.
Amendment 48, page 31, line 16, at end insert—
“(d) the need to ensure that there would be no new checks on goods moving from Northern Ireland to Ireland, and
(e) the need to ensure that there would be no new checks on goods moving from Ireland to Northern Ireland.”
This amendment would aim to require Ministers to have special regard to ensuring that there are no new checks on goods moving from Northern Ireland to Ireland or vice versa
Amendment 41, page 31, line 16, at end insert—
“(1A) When exercising any functions covered by this Part, any appropriate authority has a paramount duty—
(a) to act without prejudice to all international and domestic law, including the Withdrawal Agreement;
(b) to address the unique circumstances on the island of Ireland;
(c) to maintain the necessary conditions for continued North-South cooperation;
(d) to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland;
(e) to protect the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement in all its dimensions.”
This amendment is intended to provide a safeguard so that any actions with respect to Part 5 of the Bill must be consistent with relevant existing international and domestic law commitments, including the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement and its Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol.
Amendment 68, page 31, line 16, at end insert—
‘(1A) Regulations that would introduce new requirements for goods traded from Great Britain to Northern Ireland may not come into force without the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
(1B) No additional official or administrative costs consequent on any regulations of the kind mentioned in subsection (1A) may be recouped from the private sector.
The intention of this amendment is to require the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly before trade frictions are imposed on goods traded from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, and to protect Northern Ireland businesses from paying for any new administrative costs.
Amendment 67, page 31, line 26, at end insert—
‘(2A) On or after IP completion day, an appropriate authority must not exercise any function in a way that would—
(a) result in an existing kind of GB-NI check, control or administrative process being used—
(i) for the first time, or
(ii) for a new purpose or to a new extent; or
(b) result in a new kind of GB-NI check, control or administrative process—
(i) being introduced, or
(ii) being used.
(2B) For the purposes of this section—
(a) a “GB-NI” check, control or administrative process is one applicable to the direct movement of goods produced in a part of the United Kingdom from Great Britain to Northern Ireland;
(b) goods are to be regarded as “produced in” a part of the United Kingdom (if not wholly produced there) if the most recent significant regulated step in their production has occurred there.”
(c) an “existing kind” of GB-NI check, control or administrative process is one that—
(i) was in use or available for use immediately before IP completion day, or
(ii) is the same as, or substantially similar to, one that was in use or available for use immediately before IP completion day (the “predecessor”);
(d) a “new kind of” GB-NI check, control or administrative process is one that is not of an existing kind;
(e) where an GB-NI check, control or administrative process is of an existing kind because of paragraph (b)(ii), that check, control or administrative process and the predecessor are to be treated as a single function for the purpose of determining whether subsection (1)(a) prevents its exercise;
(f) the purpose for which, or extent to which, a function would be used is “new” if the function has not been used for that purpose, or to that extent, before IP completion day.
(2C) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations amend this section so that it applies to a type of movement instead of, or in addition to, a type of movement to which it already applies (whether that type of movement is direct movement or another type of movement provided for by regulations under this subsection).”
The intention of this amendment is to mirror in Clause 40, in relation to the movement of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, the unfettered access NI-GB provisions in Clause 41.
Clause 40 stand part.
Amendment 69, in clause 41, page 32, line 4, at end insert—
“(c) result in a new cost on an Northern Ireland business in accessing the market or in meeting conditions of sale on the market that would not exist for Great Britain businesses.”
The intention of this amendment is to make unlawful both direct costs and administrative processes and indirect costs such as labelling etc being imposed on Northern Ireland businesses after IP completion day.
Amendment 52, page 32, line 4, at end insert—
‘(1A) An appropriate authority exercising any function to which this section applies must have regard to the obligations of the United Kingdom under the Withdrawal Agreement, including in particular the duty to seek resolution of disputes through the Joint Committee.”
The intention of this amendment is to confirm the process agreed in the Withdrawal Agreement as the mechanism for dispute resolution.
Government amendment 61.
Amendment 53, page 32, line 19, leave out paragraph (b).
The intention of this amendment is to omit the disapplication of international domestic law under Clause 45.
Government amendment 62.
Amendment 70, page 32, line 25, after “direct” insert “or indirect”
The intention of this amendment is to include within the definition of “NI-GB check” goods which travel indirectly (via Dublin, for example) from Northern Ireland to Great Britain.
Amendment 71, page 32, line 48, at end insert—
‘(5A) Before making regulations under this section, a Minister of the Crown must consult and have regard to the views of the Northern Ireland Executive on the proposed regulations.”
The intention of this amendment is to require the Minister to consult the Northern Ireland Executive before making amending the Clause on unfettered access.
Government amendment 63.
Clause 41 stand part.
Amendment 54, in clause 42, page 33, line 40, at end insert “, and
(c) the need to respect the rule of law.”
This amendment would require Ministers to take into account the rule of law when making regulations about exit procedures for goods moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain.
Amendment 55, page 33, line 44, leave out subsection (5).
This amendment would remove the provision allowing international and domestic law to be disregarded when regulating exit procedures.
Clause 42 stand part.
Amendment 56, in clause 43, page 34, line 21,after “provision” insert
“while having due regard to the rule of law and human rights”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to respect the rule of law and human rights while making provisions under this Clause.
Amendment 57, page 34, line 23, leave out line 23.
This amendment would prevent the disapplication or modification of NI Protocol Article 10 under this Clause.
Amendment 58, page 34, line 26, leave out lines 26 to 28.
This amendment would protect, under this section about Article 10 of the Northern Ireland Protocol, persons having a right of action in respect of aid.
Amendment 59, page 34, leave out lines 41 to 44.
This amendment would stop regulations under this section about NI Protocol Article 10 having the effect that making rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures that would otherwise apply in relation to aid, would not be recognised because they are derived from international or domestic law.
Clause 43 stand part.
Amendment 60, in clause 44, page 35, line 20, at end insert—
‘(1A) The Secretary of State must take into account the need to respect the rule of law in considering whether and how to comply with the requirements mentioned in subsection (1).”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to respect the rule of law in complying with the duty to notify state aid in accordance with Article 10 of the Northern Ireland Protocol.
Clause 44 stand part.
Government amendment 64.
Amendment 31, in clause 45, page 36, line 17, at end insert—
‘(3A) The meaning of “incompatible”, “inconsistent”, “incompatibility” and “inconsistency” in this Part shall be determined by regulations made by statutory instrument by the Secretary of State.
(3B) Regulations under subsection (3A) may not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of the House of Commons.
(3C) Any draft of regulations laid before Parliament under subsection (3B) must be accompanied by an impact assessment of Her Majesty’s Government’s obligations under international law on Part 5 of this Act.”
This amendment would require the definition of incompatible, inconsistent, incompatibility and inconsistency to be determined only after an impact assessment of the UK Government’s obligations under international law has been carried out (see Amendment 32).
Amendment 42, page 36, line 17, at end insert—
‘(3A) If no agreement has been reached before IP completion day between the EU and the United Kingdom on the free movement of goods in both directions between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, a Minister of the Crown may lay before each House of Parliament a unilateral interpretative declaration, applicable to the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland, setting out how interruption of the free movement of goods between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom would not be in accord with the Protocol.”
The purpose of this amendment would be for the Government to utilise a unilateral interpretative declaration in order to preserve free movement of goods between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK without tariffs or controls in the event of no deal.
Amendment 32, page 36, line 18, at end insert—
““incompatible”, “inconsistent”, “incompatibility” and “inconsistency” have the meaning given in accordance with subsection (3A);”
This amendment would require the definition of incompatible, inconsistent, incompatibility and inconsistency to be determined only after an impact assessment of the UK Government’s obligations under international law has been carried out (see Amendment 31).
Government amendment 65.
Amendment 46, page 36, leave out line 20.
This amendment would aim to put in place an understanding that each section of the Act should be compatible or consistent with the Northern Ireland Protocol.
Amendment 43, page 36, line 27, leave out “whatsoever” and insert
“other than the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights”
This amendment excepts the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights from the definition of “relevant domestic and international law.”
Amendment 44, page 36, line 28, at end insert
“other than the High Court, Upper Tribunal or Court of Session when considering an application for judicial review.”
This amendment seeks to make it clear that nothing in Clause 45 ousts the jurisdiction of domestic courts in respect of judicial review of regulations made under Clauses 42 and 43.
Amendment 47, page 36, line 28, insert —
‘(none) “but excludes any provision of—
(a) the European Convention on Human Rights,
(b) the Human Rights Act 1998,
(c) the Northern Ireland Act 1998, or
(d) the Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Act 2006.”
This amendment would aim to put in place an understanding that each section of the Act should be compatible or consistent with the legislation specified.
Clause 45 stand part.
Clause 50 stand part.
New clause 6—Duty to seek free movement of goods from Northern Ireland to Great Britain—
Ministers of the Crown must use their best endeavours to seek through the Joint Committee (established in the Withdrawal Agreement) the disapplication of export declarations and other exit procedures for goods of Northern Ireland moving to Great Britain, in a manner consistent with the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement and other international obligations.”
This new clause, while recognising that under the Withdrawal Agreement export declarations and exit procedures fall under the ambit of the EU Customs Code, would mandate the UK Government to use its endeavours to achieve a waiver for Northern Ireland origin goods moving to Great Britain.
New clause 7—Compatibility—
No power under this Act may be exercised by an appropriate authority unless the exercise (or purpose of the exercise) would be compatible and consistent with—
(a) the Good Friday or Belfast Agreement of 10 April 1998 between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of Ireland and the other participants in the multi-party negotiations, which is annexed to the British-Irish Agreement of the same date, or
(b) any domestic legislation or subsequent agreement implementing the Agreement.”
This new clause would aim to ensure that powers could not be used under the Bill if they were incompatible or inconsistent with the Good Friday Agreement or its associated documents.
Amendment 78, in clause 10, page 7, line 17, at end, insert—
‘(2A) In making these regulations, the Secretary of State must have special regard to the need to maintain the integral place of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom internal market.
The intention of this amendment is to ensure that further exclusions from the application of the access principles have regard to safeguarding unfettered access of NI businesses to the UK Internal Market.
Amendment 79, in schedule 1, page 44, line 40, at end, insert—
‘(6A) In the case that there is one REACH authorisation process for Great Britain, an authorisation that is lawful for the Northern Ireland market will be valid for the Great Britain market.”
The intention of this amendment is to apply the non-discrimination principle to the REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals) regime.
Amendment 4, in clause 54, page 41, line 24,at end insert—
‘(2A) The relevant sections of this Act come into force in accordance only if—
(a) a Minister of the Crown has moved a motion in the House of Commons specifying on which date a relevant section comes into force, and
(b) that motion is approved by resolution of the House of Commons.
(2B) The relevant sections for the purposes of subsection (2A) are sections 42, 43 and 45.”
This amendment would prevent any of sections 42 (Power to disapply or modify export declarations and other exit procedures), 43 (Regulations about Article 10 of the Northern Ireland Protocol) and 45 (Further provision related to sections 42 and 43 etc) coming into force before the House of Commons had approved by resolution the date from which they would take effect.
Government amendment 66.
Everyone will know that the call list is very well subscribed, so may I ask at this stage that those taking part show some self-discipline as to the length of contributions made, so that as many MPs as possible may be able to participate in this part of the Committee?

Robin Walker: Thank you, Mr Evans. I am pleased to be opening this detailed consideration of part 5 of the Bill, which deals with matters relating to the Northern Ireland Protocol. I welcome this opportunity to discuss these provisions and the important issues they raise in depth today. Before I turn to the specific clauses and amendments in this group, let me begin by making it clear that the Northern Ireland protocol to the withdrawal agreement is designed to recognise and protect the needs and unique circumstances of Northern Ireland. Central to that is ensuring that the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, its successor agreements, and the gains of the peace process are protected. But, above all, we must ensure that the delicate balance between all communities in Northern Ireland is maintained and that the UK Government pursue policies for sustained growth and stability in Northern Ireland. Those have always been and will remain this Government’s priorities.
Through this Bill, we are acting to uphold those priorities and deliver the commitments we made in our election manifesto that we would provide unfettered access between Northern Ireland and Great Britain and
“maintain and strengthen the integrity and smooth operation of our internal market.”
The protocol also explicitly depends on the consent of the people of Northern Ireland for its continued existence. As we implement the protocol, that must be kept in mind. Those commitments are, of course, entirely in accord with the protocol itself, which makes it clear that, among other things, Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom’s customs territory, that nothing in the protocol prevents unfettered access from Northern Ireland to the rest of the UK market, and that in its application the protocol should impact as little as possible on the everyday life of communities in both Ireland and Northern Ireland.

John Redwood: Will the Minister confirm that if the European Union kept its promise in the political declaration of a free trade agreement, many of the troublesome issues would drop away and all would work smoothly?

Robin Walker: My right hon. Friend is of course right about that, and we still hope to strike a free trade agreement with the EU. I also point out that these issues can and should be resolved through the Joint Committee—I will come back to that.
Both the UK and the EU signed up to the protocol on the basis I just outlined. We are committed to implementing the protocol and we have been working hard to ensure that it is done in a way that delivers the promises that have been made. That includes working with the EU to reach agreement through the Joint Committee process in a number of areas that the protocol left unresolved, and we very much hope that agreement can be reached shortly. But if it is not, the harmful legal defaults contained in some interpretations of the protocol, which were never intended to be used, would be activated. The consequences for Northern Ireland in that scenario would be very damaging. We cannot and will not run that risk.
The provisions we are considering today will therefore ensure that in any scenario, we will protect Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom; ensure that businesses based in Northern Ireland have unfettered access to the rest of the United Kingdom; and ensure that there is no legal confusion or ambiguity in UK law about the interpretation of the state aid elements of the Northern Ireland protocol.

Hilary Benn: Will the Minister give way?

Robin Walker: I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman in a moment, because I do intend to refer to some of his comments in my speech, and I will happily take his intervention shortly.
Further measures will be set out in the Finance Bill. These will have the same effect as those already proposed in the UKIM Bill, and will make it clear that no tariffs will be payable on goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland unless those goods are destined for the EU market, or there is a genuine and substantial risk of them ending up there. We will take the necessary powers in the Finance Bill to ensure that this is defined in a reasonable and proportionate way, which ensures that legitimate traders are not penalised, while also resolving the outstanding issues relating to the payment of VAT and excise duty. So we are taking limited and reasonable steps through the legislation to create a legal safety net by taking powers in reserve, whereby Ministers can guarantee the integrity of our United Kingdom and ensure that the Government are always able to deliver on their commitments to the people of Northern Ireland in line with the three-stranded approach of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.

Jim Shannon: I declare an interest as a member of the Ulster Farmers Union, which has contacted me, and it says:
“there will be a total amount under the NI protocol that will be a maximum we can give to agriculture in the form of support and there will be a certain percentage that we could give as coupled support.”
It clearly sees that less state aid will be available for Northern Ireland and we will be treated differently from Scotland, Wales and the rest of England. Does the Minister of State agree with that?

Robin Walker: I will come in detail to the amendment tabled by the hon. Gentleman’s party later in my speech, but I do recognise that when it comes to state aid, we have made specific agreements under the protocol on goods traded between Northern Ireland and the EU, and we should stick to those in order to ensure the effective functioning of trade north, south, east and west. We are taking steps in the Bill to clarify the state aid elements, and some of those will be to the benefit of businesses in Northern Ireland. I will come back to that point in more detail.

Hilary Benn: Will the Minister give way?

Robin Walker: If I may, I will come to the right hon. Gentleman’s point very shortly, and then I will happily give way to him.
We would not take these steps lightly. We hope it will never be necessary to use these powers, and we would do so only if, in our view, the EU was engaged in a material breach of its duties of good faith or other obligations. We would, of course, always activate appropriate formal dispute resolution mechanisms with the aim of finding a solution through this route in parallel to any domestic legislation. I draw the Committee’s attention to the statement that the Government made on 17 September .

Jeremy Wright: Can I ask my hon. Friend to go just a little further than he has just gone? He has explained already that the Government may end up in a position where entirely outrageous behaviour on the part of the EU might lead to a conclusion that no Government could possibly accept. Can I ask him to confirm that in those circumstances the Government would explore to the fullest all the options available to them within the withdrawal agreement before resorting to any breach of international law outside the withdrawal agreement—accepting, of course, that there would come a time when if the Government did not act unilaterally it would then be too late to do so?

Robin Walker: I absolutely hear what my right hon. and learned Friend has said, and I draw his attention to the words of the Prime Minister, who said that we would simultaneously pursue every possible redress under international law, including those provided by the protocol. In those circumstances, in addition to our steps under domestic law, we would—if we had to—make it clear that we believed that the EU was engaged in a material breach of its duties in good faith as required and provided for under the withdrawal agreement and the Vienna convention on the law of treaties.

Sammy Wilson: This is a very important issue. If it is the case that, before the Government introduced the measures contained in this Bill, or those the Minister has promised will be contained in the Finance Bill, he would first pursue the avenues that are  open through the withdrawal agreement—the Joint Committee, adjudication and finally the European Court of Justice—does he not recognise that that process itself could be so elongated that the economic damage done by the requirements of the EU could be very severe in Northern Ireland?

Robin Walker: The right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. That is why we are taking the powers in this Bill, and we would seek the consent of the House before those powers were exercised—it is to ensure that there is a legal default different from the one that he suggests. It is about taking these steps in parallel.
I want to recognise the significant concerns that many Members have raised, which is why we have agreed that a “break glass” provision should be included, requiring the House of Commons to give its approval before these measures are commenced. I will return to the detail of that shortly, but the Committee should be in no doubt that this Government will always seek to ensure that the Belfast/Good Friday agreement is protected and that the political and economic integrity of our United Kingdom is maintained. That is what the Government amendments in this group seek to achieve.
Clauses 11, 40 and 41 of the Bill give effect to the Government’s commitment to give unfettered access to Northern Ireland goods to the whole UK internal market, in line with the protocol. They will ensure that we protect the vast majority of the £8.1 billion of goods sales from Northern Ireland to Great Britain and guarantee Northern Ireland’s place in the UK’s internal market. That will provide vital legal certainty for businesses in Northern Ireland, whose largest market is the rest of the United Kingdom—56% of Northern Ireland’s goods trade is with Great Britain—and deliver on a promise that has been repeatedly made throughout the process of our exit from the European Union.
Clause 11 sets out that qualifying Northern Ireland goods will benefit from mutual recognition and are not discriminated against. It ensures that the mutual recognition principle will apply to all such goods that will also benefit from unfettered access under clause 40. Clause 40 ensures that, in implementing the protocol, authorities must have special regard to the fundamental need to maintain Northern Ireland’s integral place in the UK’s internal market and customs territory and to facilitate the free flow of goods between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. That, of course, applies to trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland in both directions.
Clause 41 ensures that there will be no new checks, controls or administrative processes on goods moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. This clause is in keeping with what the Government have constantly said, including in our manifesto, and in line with our commitments to businesses in the “New Decade, New Approach” agreement.
Clauses 42, 43 and 45 set out the safety net that I have described. Clause 42 ensures that full unfettered access is guaranteed in any scenario by providing a power to disapply or modify the requirement for export declarations or other exit procedures when goods move from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. As the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) rightly said on Second Reading, there is no real justification for such declarations being needed to protect the EU’s single market or  customs union. It is a wholly reasonable suggestion from the UK that this issue can and should be resolved through the Joint Committee, but if it is not—and this is perhaps where he and I disagree—there needs to be a safety net in place.

Hilary Benn: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way on that point. I want to press him on the safeguard measures that are provided in article 16 of the protocol and the extent to which they enable the Government to take action if they think the EU is being unreasonable. There is a one-month waiting period, but after that, the Government are able to take safeguard measures. Annex 7(5) goes on to say:
“The safeguard measures taken shall be the subject of consultations in the Joint Committee every 3 months”.
Could he clarify what would cause those safeguard measures to come to an end? Would it be a decision of the arbitration mechanism that the Government lost? Could it then go to the European Court of Justice? In other words, could he explain why what the Government negotiated to protect the country from bad faith action by the EU is insufficient? We have not had an answer to that question.

Robin Walker: We are talking about the question of legal default. The UK Government are responsible for their implementation of the protocol, and we want to ensure that we have the necessary powers in UK law to avoid those legal defaults. As I have said, we would initiate all necessary proceedings in international law, including those under the protocol, if necessary, at that stage. It is not a stage that any of us want to get to, and we still hope to resolve these issues through the Joint Committee.

Mark Harper: There is a way of reconciling the points made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) and the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). Under the amendment that the Government have tabled, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) paved the way for, is it not the case that Ministers would have to come to this House and make a case that it found compelling before they could use these powers? As the Bill was formerly drafted—this is why so many of us had concerns about it—Ministers could have made those resolutions under the affirmative procedure, and the powers would have come into force before any of us had a say. Under the amended Bill, Ministers would have to come to the House in advance, make the case and win not only the argument but the support of this House. That should reassure us all that these powers will only be used when absolutely necessary.

Robin Walker: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was going to come in more detail to the amendment tabled by our hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), the Chair of the Justice Committee, and the Government’s amendment in response, but my right hon. Friend is absolutely right in what he says, and that should provide significant reassurance to Members across the House.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Robin Walker: I will make a little progress.
Clause 42 is in keeping with what the Government have constantly said, including public commitments from the Prime Minister, our manifesto commitments and commitments to the people of Northern Ireland. It is clear from the protocol that it is for the UK to implement unfettered access. Declarations of the sort that would be disapplied through this clause would be contrary to the recognition in the protocol that Northern Ireland is part of the customs territory of the United Kingdom.
Clauses 43 and 44 provide a similar safety net in the case of EU state aid rules that will apply in the UK by virtue of the protocol. Clause 43 gives the Secretary of State the ability to ensure there is no ambiguity in UK law about the interpretation of article 10 of the protocol, which provides that EU state aid rules will apply in respect of goods and electricity traded between Northern Ireland and the EU. A clear interpretation of how they will apply may be needed in the interests of legal certainty for both public authorities granting subsidies and companies throughout the UK receiving support. There is a risk that a maximalist interpretation of article 10 of protocol by the EU, which was never intended but is none the less a risk we must protect against, could give the European Commission extensive jurisdiction over subsidies granted in the rest of the UK, known as reach-back. All the subsidies granted to the services sector in Northern Ireland could be caught even if there is no link, or only a trivial one, to a goods provider.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Absolute clarity and certainty is required on this state aid issue. For example, will traders in Northern Ireland be able to benefit from subsidy paid by the EU, will they be able to benefit only from subsidy paid by the UK, or will they be able to benefit from both? If it is both, that would certainly address the issue of the best of both worlds, but I think it is an absolute nonsense, because it will not be allowed to happen. Can the Minister clear up that matter immediately? Will the European Union, or our predatory neighbour to the south of Ireland, be able to stop Northern Ireland benefiting from free ports that could be given to Northern Ireland? Would they be able to block that? Clarity on those issues is absolutely essential.

Robin Walker: The hon. Gentleman raises some important points. It is for the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to use the powers in the Bill to take further steps in setting out the UK’s state aid policy. As the hon. Gentleman will recognise, the UK also has a policy on free ports, which we absolutely want Northern Ireland to be part of, so perhaps that is for future debates.
Let me be clear: the Government’s position is that EU state aid rules will apply in Northern Ireland as long as the protocol is in place in respect of goods and electricity, as agreed, but we have to give businesses the certainty that they will not face the destabilising prospect of the European Commission applying its state aid rules to companies in Great Britain with no link, or only a trivial link, to Northern Ireland. The power in  the Bill allows the Business Secretary to make provision for how article 10 is to be interpreted for domestic purposes.

Theresa May: My hon. Friend has been setting out throughout his speech that the Government want clauses 41 to 45 because of the bad consequences that could come from an interpretation of the withdrawal agreement. If the potential consequences of the withdrawal agreement were so bad, why did the Government sign it?

Robin Walker: As my right hon. Friend knows well, the withdrawal agreement was negotiated by the UK and the EU and agreed with a view that certain elements would be resolved by the Joint Committee. I think there was a reasonable expectation on both sides that the Joint Committee would have made more progress on those issues, but unfortunately we have heard some harmful interpretations over the past few months. The point of these Government clauses is to ensure that we can rule those out and put in place the appropriate legal default.

Stephen Farry: Surely the Government’s approach is self-defeating in the following respect? Ministers rightly outline that a range of issues are still to be resolved through the Joint Committee. For that, we need to prove to the European Union that the UK can be trusted if various derogations are granted to the UK, but if we pass legislation that still contains even the merest threat of breaching the existing agreement, why would the EU be flexible and give us that trust as we will not have shown the ability to follow through with other previous agreements?

Robin Walker: I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that we have consistently followed through with our agreement. We have done that with the delivery of protocol requirements when it comes to the legislation for the dedicated mechanism and to citizens’ rights, and we will do so regarding EU state aid rules applying in Northern Ireland in respect of goods and electricity as agreed.

Bill Cash: rose—

Robin Walker: I will make a bit of progress and take an intervention from my hon. Friend later.
Clause 44 establishes a statutory requirement that no one besides the Secretary of State may notify the European Commission of state aid where the UK is required to do so as a consequence of article 10. That codifies in legislation the existing practice where aid is notified by the Foreign Secretary via the UK mission in Brussels and will ensure that a uniform approach to the state aid elements of the protocol is taken across the UK.

Alan Brown: rose—

Robin Walker: Clause 45 completes the all-purpose safety net for regulations made under clauses 42 and 43, so that there can be no confusion about the position in domestic law for our courts, businesses and public bodies.

Edward Leigh: The objection seems to be that we may have to act in this way, but we do not want to break international law. Has my hon. Friend noted my amendment 45, which shows a way through? Under the Vienna convention, which is already mentioned through the conditional interpretative declaration, if another party is acting in bad faith, we can use the declaration to escape from an impossible situation. Will the Minister at least look at that amendment?

Robin Walker: I will look at my hon. Friend’s amendment. I will come to amendments shortly—I realise that I need to make some more progress in addressing the many amendments we face. We do not consider necessarily that a unilateral interpretative declaration would be required, although as I said, we will use all the tools at our disposal to resolve the issue within the terms of the protocol before using the powers in the Bill. If that is one that we considered would help, we would not hesitate to use it, but we do not see the need for the amendment in that respect.
For the avoidance of doubt, let me confirm again that we are of course committed to implementing the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol, and have already taken many practical steps to do that. However, as a responsible Government, we cannot allow the gains of the peace process or the economic integrity of the UK’s internal market to be compromised inadvertently by unintended consequences and harmful legal defaults suggested by some interpretations of the protocol.
Finally, clause 50 disapplies certain provisions of the UK Internal Market Bill in the scenario that Northern Ireland’s representatives resolve, under the protocol’s consent mechanism, that articles 5 to 10 of the protocol should cease to apply. This is a practical step to account for and respect the principle of consent enshrined in the protocol. The protocol itself is not codified as a permanent solution for Northern Ireland, and neither should it be in the domestic legislation that implements it. Taken together, these clauses deliver on our commitments to Northern Ireland.
I want to address the amendments as briefly as I can, so I will have to be limited in the number of interventions I will take.

Alan Brown: Will the Minister give way?

Robin Walker: The hon. Gentleman has tried to intervene for a very long period, so I will take one intervention from the Scottish National party.

Alan Brown: I thank the Minister for giving way. If we go back to the legal defaults that he says were never envisaged to be enacted, will he explain why plenty of people in the House pointed out that these were the very scenarios that could come about because the agreement was signed? Will he also explain why the EU is acting in bad faith by upholding an agreement that the Prime Minister himself said was a fantastic deal for Northern Ireland? Finally, can he explain what happened to this magical technological solution that the Government said they were working on that would prevent all this?

Robin Walker: I take no lectures from the SNP on this issue. It is clear that the reason why the SNP opposes the withdrawal agreement is that it opposed our leaving the EU in the first place. With regard to the development  of technological solutions, I agreed with Michel Barnier when he said that it is important that both sides look at innovative and flexible solutions. When it comes to the future debate in the Northern Ireland Assembly on consent, it may be that technological progress can help with delivery, so I think that many of these arguments stand. We are committed to the protocol and to all our commitments to Northern Ireland, including the unfettered access as part of our United Kingdom.
I turn to two amendments regarding the commencement of these provisions that have been subject to much debate and attention, including a number of powerful and persuasive speeches on Second Reading. Amendment 4, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, the Chair of the Justice Committee, and is signed by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, seeks to provide in essence that break-glass mechanism on the key safety net provisions in relation to the protocol by stating that clauses 42, 43 and 45 of the Bill may not come into force until a motion in this House is passed. Since that amendment was tabled, I am pleased that there have been constructive talks between my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and Ministers, and the Government have tabled amendment 66, which provides for substantially the same break-glass mechanism, with the additional requirement for a take-note debate in the other place. I hope that that amendment will demonstrate to hon. Members, including the Chair of the Justice Committee, that we are committed to ensuring that any decision to use the powers is explicitly approved by Parliament.

Bob Neill: I thank my hon. Friend for the constructive tone that he and members of the Government have adopted in these matters. It enables some of us who otherwise would not have been able to support these clauses to proceed, on the understanding that there is a specific parliamentary lock that bad faith on the counter-party’s side must be proven to the House before these powers are brought into operation, which of course all of us hope will never be the case. I welcome that, and it enables us to support the Government’s amendment.

Robin Walker: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. A fundamental principle of our constitution, and one that lies at the very heart of our exit from the EU, is that this Parliament is sovereign. As set out in clause 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, that means that it can choose to legislate to deliver an interpretation of the protocol consistent with our understanding, while recognising that to do so is a significant step. The parliamentary procedure set out in amendment 66 recognises that, and provides a clearer, more explicit democratic mandate for the use of the powers. I therefore commend amendment 66 to the Committee, and urge my hon. Friend and all Members to support it and not to press amendment 4.

Alistair Carmichael: Will the Minister give way?

Robin Walker: Not right now—I will come back to the right hon. Gentleman.
Amendments 64 and 65, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary, make it clear that any regulations made under clauses 42 or 43 would, of course, be subject to judicial review, contrary to some of the claims that have been made over recent weeks, while ensuring that any claims must be brought within a three-month period. That ensures that any challenge to the regulations will be subject to a timely resolution before the courts, which is essential to ensure that Northern Ireland businesses and investors in Northern Ireland have the certainty that they need, which is at the heart of the Bill. I commend those amendments to the House. As they clarify the position on judicial review, amendment 44 is not necessary.
Amendments 61 to 63, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary, are targeted technical amendments to ensure that the Government are able to maintain the integrity of the UK’s VAT and excise systems and can deal with any threats to biosecurity in Great Britain in response to changes required in Northern Ireland under the protocol.
In particular, the amendments ensure that the Government can act to address cases of double taxation and non-taxation created by the Northern Ireland protocol, as well as to close down opportunities for tax evasion.
The amendments will also ensure that both the UK Government and the devolved Administrations can continue, as they do now, to respond to specific biosecurity threats arising from the movement of animals and high-risk plants. The principle of facilitating actions to protect biosecurity on an ongoing basis between England, Scotland and Wales is already reflected in schedule 1 to the Bill. The amendments simply clarify that similar processes can also apply with regard to Northern Ireland where there is a genuine risk of a biosecurity threat that poses a serious threat to the health of humans, animals or plants.
I commend those amendments to the Committee.

Alistair Carmichael: May I take the Minister back to the undertaking that he gave to his hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill)? Some of us have some misgivings about that undertaking, because this Government have shown an exceptional fondness for withdrawing the Whip from those in their own party who disagree with them. In the circumstances of the parliamentary lock being necessary, can we get an assurance from the Treasury Bench at some point in this debate that any such vote will be a free vote?

Robin Walker: The right hon. Gentleman should know better, with his extensive experience, than to ask me to comment on whipping matters.
Several of the amendments in this group seek to unpick, either implicitly or explicitly, the safety-net measures set out in the Bill.

Rehman Chishti: Will the Minister give way?

Robin Walker: I will perhaps give way on a point of substance later, but not on that point.
Amendment 41 seeks, among other things, to add a paramount duty to clause 40, requiring authorities to act without prejudice to international and domestic law.  Amendment 53 similarly seeks to prevent authorities from exercising functions in a way that is incompatible or inconsistent with relevant domestic or international law. Amendment 52 appears to require the Government to follow the process agreed in the withdrawal agreement as the only mechanism for dispute resolution. Amendments 54 and 55 seek to prevent regulations made under clause 42 from having effect, notwithstanding international and domestic law. Amendment 46 would remove the Northern Ireland protocol from the list of international law that may be set aside, undermining the intent of clauses 42 and 43.
Amendments 57 and 59 would prevent regulations under clause 43 from interpreting, disapplying or modifying the effect of article 10 of the protocol. Clause 43 is a necessary provision that will ensure that the Secretary of State’s interpretation will achieve the correct effect in domestic law.
I repeat that the Government are committed to implementing the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol; however, as a responsible Government we cannot accept any amendments that would undermine the provisions in the Bill and render them no kind of safety net at all, thereby risking the compromising of the UK internal market’s economic integrity by unintended consequences or harmful defaults contained in some interpretations of the protocol, or creating confusion or uncertainty about the position in domestic law. I therefore urge right hon. and hon. Members to withdraw the amendments.
I recognise the spirit behind amendments 67 and 68. The Government have been clear that, as we set out in the Command Paper, we will ensure that there are no tariffs on any goods that remain within the UK customs territory. I hope Members will welcome the further relevant measures that will be set out in the Finance Bill.
There will not be any new customs infrastructure in Northern Ireland. We have always accepted that there will be some limited, streamlined processes for goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, building on what already happens at existing points of entry and limited to electronic declarations for businesses in Great Britain to confirm that their products are for the Northern Ireland market.
We have outlined our commitment to providing extensive support for businesses, including through the new trader support service, which will provide an end-to-end service and guide traders through all import processes at no additional cost. This is a unique intervention, backed by £200 million in Government funding to ensure that businesses of all sizes can draw on the support that it provides. Given those assurances, I hope that Members will feel able to withdraw the amendments.

Gavin Robinson: The Minister invites us to withdraw the amendments. This is the second occasion in the past week on which a Minister has stood at the Dispatch Box and held up an olive branch of potential amendments or provisions that will be brought forth in the Finance Bill. We have not seen the text of those potential provisions and we do not know their content. I invite the Minister to go a little  further and explain why we should withdraw the amendment at this time, given the verbal assurances he has offered.

Robin Walker: I absolutely hear the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. I have made the point about what we have said in the Command Paper and what the Prime Minister has referred to in respect of the Finance Bill.
Amendment 69 seeks to ensure that there would be no new costs for a Northern Ireland business to access or sell in the market. The UK Government have already committed in legislation to delivering unfettered access for Northern Ireland businesses, including through the Bill, which will apply the principles of mutual recognition and non-discrimination to qualifying Northern Ireland goods, thereby ensuring that they can continue to be sold in the Great Britain market in the same way as now. The amendment is therefore unnecessary.
Amendment 70 seeks to ensure that goods moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain through Ireland will benefit from unfettered access. I reassure Members that we recognise the importance of trade from Northern Ireland to Great Britain that moves via Dublin to Holyhead. We are currently engaging with businesses and the Northern Ireland Executive on the long-term means for delivering qualifying status for unfettered access. It would be wrong to pre-empt the outcome of that consultation, so the Government cannot accept the amendment.
On amendment 71, the Government have been working and will continue to work closely with the Northern Ireland Executive on the implementation of the protocol, including on unfettered access, but we do not agree that a restriction on the Government’s powers to make regulations effectively would be justified.
We resist amendment 72 on the basis that it is legally unnecessary. The current wording already encompasses distortions of competition between persons supplying goods or services in the course of a business within the UK internal market. Such wording is already sufficient to cover the regulation of subsidies that would have the effect of making Northern Ireland businesses less competitive in the Great Britain market.
Although the Government agree with the spirit of amendment 78, the whole Government are acutely aware of the need to maintain Northern Ireland’s integral place in the UK internal market, which is already referenced many times elsewhere in the Bill, so we do not believe the amendment is necessary.
On amendment 79, I understand Members’ concerns and support mutual recognition and the non-discrimination principle, but the exception to mutual recognition that we have introduced for chemicals is there to allow the relevant authorities to respond to local factors. Authorisations granted by the EU after the end of the transition period will not take local conditions into consideration. I emphasise that the authorisations relate to the use of substances of very high concern. It is important that the Government and devolved Administrations can take local factors into account when they decide how to protect human health or the environment from the significant risks posed by such chemicals. I therefore urge Members to withdraw or vote against the amendment.
On new clause 7 and amendment 45, I want to reassure Members that the Bill includes provisions that are there precisely to protect the essential basis of the peace process, by ensuring that, regardless of whether further agreement is reached in the negotiations, there will be no hard border between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, and that Northern Ireland businesses will continue to benefit from unfettered access to the rest of the UK market when the transition period ends.
I can also reassure hon. Members that our commitment to protecting the Belfast/ Good Friday agreement of course includes protecting north-south co-operation in areas specified under that agreement, and the protocol is clear on that. That commitment is already enshrined in UK legislation: in section 10 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, and through our continued support for this strand of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement throughout the process of exiting the European Union.

Colum Eastwood: Can the Minister explain how people in Northern Ireland can have any confidence that this Government, who said only the week before last that they would break international law, will not break or undermine the Good Friday agreement, which of course is an international treaty?

Robin Walker: As I have said repeatedly, we are absolutely committed to the Good Friday agreement, and I can give the hon. Gentleman an illustration of that in UK law on the very next clause. I can assure him that amendment 48 is simply unnecessary. The protocol guarantees that there will be no hard border on the island of Ireland under any circumstances. We are fully committed to delivering on that and no power in the Bill makes any change to that. We have already included in law our commitment not to
“create or facilitate border arrangements between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland after exit day which feature physical infrastructure, including border posts, or checks and controls, that did not exist before exit day and are not in accordance with an agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU.”
That is set out in section 10(2)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, which I was pleased to take through the House. For those reasons, the hon. Gentleman’s amendments are unnecessary and I urge him not to press them.
On amendments 43 and 47, I can offer hon. Members an assurance that the recognition and protection of rights are fundamental values of the UK. Our human rights framework offers comprehensive, well-established and effective protections within a clear constitutional and legal system. The Bill is compatible with the European convention on human rights, and the Minister who presented the Bill has given a certificate of compatibility, pursuant to section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998, in the usual way. We remain committed to the ECHR, as we have made clear time and again.
Further on amendment 47, the Government do not envisage any circumstances in which the powers set out in clauses 42 and 43 could be used to amend the Northern Ireland Acts of 1998 and 2006. That renders the amendment unnecessary. For this reason, the Government are not willing to accept the amendment. I hope that hon. Members will be reassured by our commitment on this very serious matter and will not press them.
New clause 6 would require the Government to
“use their best endeavours to seek through the Joint Committee…the disapplication of export declarations and other exit procedures”.
I appreciate the thought and sentiment behind the new clause, but I am happy to say that there is no need for it because, as I have already set out, the Government are committed to implementing the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol. We are continuing to work with the EU in the Joint Committee to resolve outstanding issues with the protocol, including export declarations. Although well intentioned, the new clause is unnecessary and I urge hon. Members to reject it.
I will now turn to the other amendments on our safety net clauses pertaining to subsidy control. Now that we have left the EU, we have the opportunity to design our own subsidy control regime in a way that works for the UK economy. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy set out the Government’s plans in this regard in a written statement to the House on 9 September. Clauses 43 and 44 seek to mitigate the risks that stem from the European Commission imposing a broad interpretation of article 10. Ministers will still have respect for the rule of law and human rights when making regulations using these provisions, which is why amendment 56 is unnecessary. I remind the Committee that the purpose of the provisions in clause 43 is to strengthen our legal safety net and ensure that it is the Government’s interpretation of article 10 that UK public authorities must follow. That is why we must reject amendment 58.
Amendment 60 would amend clause 44 by limiting the scope of the Secretary of State’s interpretation of article 10 when notifying possible state aid to the European Commission. Given the complex and novel nature of the application of EU state aid law through the Northern Ireland protocol, it is the Secretary of State who is best placed to interpret and then make any possible state aid notification to the European Commission. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to ignore the safety net that the Government have proposed when making such a notification.
I will deal briefly with amendments 31 and 32. I recognise the spirit of the amendments, but I have to say that they are simply not necessary. An assessment of the legal implications of the clauses has already been provided in the Government’s statements of 10 and 17 September. Nor is there any need to make regulations defining “incompatible” or “inconsistent”, because these are self-explanatory terms. There can be no serious doubt what they mean and no further definition is required. The true intention of the amendments may be to seek to provide another point for parliamentary debate. If that is the case, I trust that the hon. Members who have tabled them will support Government amendment 66. On that basis, I urge them not to press the amendments.

Joanna Cherry: Will the Minister give way?

Robin Walker: I have given way to the SNP already. The hon. and learned Lady will have her chance to speak very shortly. I hope that I have dealt with all the important issues raised in this group of amendments. In conclusion—[Interruption.]

Joanna Cherry: I respectfully remind the Minister that the SNP has 48 Members in the House, not just one MP. I am grateful to him for giving way, because he has dealt with amendment 43, which I tabled, but not with amendment 44. Does he understand that insofar as clause 45 seeks to oust the inherent supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Session, it not only interferes in devolved matters but it is in breach of article 19 of the treaty of Union between Scotland and England? I know that he does not have a Scottish Law Officer to advise him, but can he take that on board and address it now?

Robin Walker: I am happy to look into the specific issue that hon. and learned Lady raises, but if she looks at the text in Hansard she will see that I addressed the point that she made about amendment 44. I mentioned a Government amendment that had been introduced on separate issues, but I am certainly happy to take that point away for consideration.
In conclusion, the clauses are a necessary protection to deliver our promises on unfettered access and to deliver what the protocol acknowledges on Northern Ireland’s place in the internal market and customs territory of the United Kingdom, and to respect the principle of parliamentary sovereignty.

Paul Blomfield: I rise to speak to amendments 52 to 60, which I tabled with my hon. and right hon. Friends. Together, these amendments seek to provide a solution to the mess that the Government have got themselves into by removing the provisions in the Bill that put our country in conflict with international law. We do so, because we want to maintain our reputation as a country that respects the rule of law; because we want to see a successful internal market for the whole UK when we leave the transitional arrangements on 31 December; and because we want the Prime Minister to deliver the “oven-ready” deal with the EU that he promised the British people last December—a deal that pledged tariff and barrier-free trade for services as well as goods, along with safeguarding workers’ rights, consumer and environmental protection, and which offered a broad, comprehensive and balanced security partnership underpinned by continued adherence and giving effect to the European convention on human rights.
The Bill makes that less likely. Our talks with the European Union have been damaged, our reputation in the world appears trashed, and it is a mess that was completely unnecessary and is not resolved by the amendment tabled by the Government. This so-called compromise may calm some Government Members, but it does not resolve the issue: the breach of international law that has led to the resignations of the head of the Government legal service, Jonathan Jones, and of the Advocate General, Lord Keen, who said in his letter to the Prime Minister that he could not reconcile his obligations as a Law Officer with the Bill, as he could find no
“respectable argument for the provisions at clauses 42 to 45”.
In an interview on Radio 4 last week, the Lord Chancellor was uneasy in his defence of the Bill, as he might well be, having sworn an oath when taking office to
“respect the rule of law”.
The situation could not be more serious, and we accept that the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), which has  been seized on by the Government, was introduced with good intention, arising from real, genuine concern among many Government Members, but it does not solve the problem.
In providing for a vote subsequently, the Government have offered a sticking plaster to salve consciences, but we would still be acting in contravention of international law—not when we enact the Bill’s provisions, but when it goes on to the statute book. The Government amendment does not change that fact. Let us look at the withdrawal agreement—as the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) did in her intervention—which was negotiated by the Prime Minister, signed by him and commended to the electorate as the reason to vote for the Conservative party in December’s election. Now, apparently, it is so flawed that we have been asked to break the law.
I saw the argument advanced by the Attorney General that it is okay to breach international law if the decision is taken constitutionally. That clearly flies in the face of the Vienna convention, to which we are a signatory. Article 27 makes that clear:
“A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.”

Stephen Doughty: My hon. Friend is making some absolutely crucial points, particularly about the Vienna convention. Does he accept that there is an issue here that goes well beyond the provisions in the Bill and the process we are discussing regarding the internal market? That is that it has damaged Britain’s reputation on the world stage when we have the right hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) talking about breaking the law, when we have an Attorney General who regularly attacks human rights, which the Minister has just told us the Government want to protect, and when we have a Lord Chancellor who talks about fudging the law. That is fundamentally damaging Britain on the world stage and our ability to influence and work with others.

Paul Blomfield: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He sums up well the seriousness of the decision before us today.

John Redwood: Why does the hon. Gentleman not see that this Bill has been brought about by the EU’s wish to break the agreement and what he would call international law by not respecting the sovereignty of the UK, which is fundamental in the agreement, and not going ahead with the free trade agreement, which was meant to be at the core of the future relationship?

Paul Blomfield: I thank the right hon. Member for that intervention. I would be interested to know his views on article 184 of the withdrawal agreement, which embraces the political declaration as the basis for securing our future relationship. On the intentions of both parties, I simply cite the Government’s response to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee’s report on unfettered access, in which they said:
“These talks began in March and continued throughout the summer in a spirit of good faith and mutual respect”.
On page 7, they state:
“The Government is extremely confident that the EU is working in good faith.”
That is the Government’s view.

Bill Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Paul Blomfield: I am happy to give way again. I am interested to know whether the hon. Gentleman will pursue his point about the Sheffield steel industry, on which he is usually wrong.

Bill Cash: I am actually going to look briefly at a simple point, which is that, apart from our own judges, the German federal constitutional court in December 2015 clearly stated that international law leaves it to each state to give precedence to national law. International law gives effect in that way. How does the hon. Gentleman answer that?

Paul Blomfield: I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I think the answer was provided by the Northern Ireland Secretary when he spoke to the House on the issue and he said that—let us all think on these words—
“yes, this does break international law in a very specific and limited way. We are taking the power to disapply the EU law concept of direct effect, required by article 4”.—[Official Report, 8 September 2020; Vol. 679, c. 509.]
On that, he was right. Article 4 does require that the UK ensures compliance with paragraph 1 of the withdrawal agreement, including our courts, disapplying
“inconsistent or incompatible domestic provisions”.
Article 5 makes it absolutely clear that we have an obligation to
“refrain from any measures which could jeopardise the attainment of the objectives of this Agreement”,
which, as the Northern Ireland Secretary made clear, is the purpose of clauses 41 to 45. In adopting them, we are in breach of international law and unsettling the situation in Northern Ireland, to which the Minister rightly referred. Indeed, the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, Sir Declan Morgan, who is a widely respected voice, said that the Government’s actions “may well undermine trust”.

Joanna Cherry: Does the answer to the question raised by the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) about the German constitutional court not lie in what our own United Kingdom Supreme Court said at paragraph 55 in the case of Miller v. Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union? Our own Supreme Court said that
“treaties between sovereign states have effect in international law and are not governed by the domestic law of any state.”
Is that not the answer under the domestic law of the United Kingdom?

Paul Blomfield: That is certainly an additional answer.

Iain Duncan Smith: The hon. Gentleman says that this is about a collapse in trust. The collapse in trust in that description is one way; that is to say with the UK Government, because they are apparently breaching treaty law. However, if he were to go to the case Kadi v. Commission, he would see that the Advocate General at the time of the case made it very clear. I want to quote this, as it is quite important:
“first and foremost, to preserve the constitutional framework created by the Treaty…it would be wrong to conclude that, once  the Community is bound by a rule of international law…The relationship between international law and the Community legal order”—
that is their constitution—
“is governed by the Community legal order itself, and international law can permeate that legal order only under the conditions set by the constitutional principles of the Community.”
So the EU itself has the principle that it will vet its obligations and not necessarily implement them, as it requires.

Paul Blomfield: The right hon. Gentleman came back at me on the quote I gave about trust. That quote was from the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, and it was about trust in relation to the Government’s actions. In terms of how we deal with the issues that the right hon. Gentleman refers to, I will come on to those subsequently.
The Government’s cavalier disregard for the rule of law has been condemned by the Law Society and by the Bar Council. It has shocked people across the country, and it has disturbed our friends and allies around the world. Part of the tragedy of the Government’s actions is that they never needed to do this. Instead of throwing their toys out of the pram, there was a grown-up solution there in the Northern Ireland protocol itself: the dispute resolution mechanisms agreed by the Prime Minister, to which the Minister has referred at length and which have been utilised already on other issues. However, in recognising those, the Minister failed to explain to the House satisfactorily why the Government have chosen not to exercise that route and have instead put this proposed legislation before the House. Article 16 provides for either the EU or the UK to take unilateral safeguard measures:
“If the application of this Protocol leads to serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties”,
and annex 7, to which I think he alluded, sets out the process to which matters can be resolved through the Joint Committee set up to oversee the implementation of the withdrawal agreement.
Do not take my word for it. The former Attorney General, the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox), who I seem to recall was once celebrated in the Conservative party, made the case in The Times last week when he said:
“There are clear and lawful responses available to Her Majesty’s Government”,
which
“include triggering the agreed independent arbitration procedure set out in the withdrawal agreement and, in extremis, these might legitimately extend to taking temporary and proportionate measures, where they are urgently necessary to protect the fundamental interests of the UK”.
That was his conclusion. And the Prime Minister could not answer my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) at the Liaison Committee last week when he asked the simple question why he had not been prepared to use those measures, which he negotiated, to resolve any disagreements, rather than engage in lawbreaking.
So let me ask the Minister a simple question, which I hope he will come back to at the end of this very long debate, on the question of state aid. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael  Gove), said it was a matter for the Joint Committee. Will the Minister be able to confirm in his winding up whether the Government have actually raised their concerns there for resolution?
Our amendments seek to put the Bill right. They reassert our commitment to the rule of law by removing the notwithstanding clauses, which have been the subject of so much attention, but also the other references to disapplying the protocol and disregarding the law.

Bill Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Paul Blomfield: No. I have taken one intervention from the hon. Gentleman and, with respect for those wishing to speak, I will follow the injunction of the Chair and make progress.
The Government are sending a worrying message, too, about their attitude to accountability in Government amendments 64 and 65, limiting opportunities for judicial review. Our amendments 58 and 59 would put that right, protecting those rights for the scrutiny and challenge of Ministers. If the Government are, as they say, acting reasonably, they should not be afraid of scrutiny or of challenge. Overall, our amendments 52 to 60 would enable the Bill to achieve its aims, but to stick to the rule of law, the Human Rights Act 1998 and our international obligations. We hope that the Government will accept them, but if they do not, we will vote against clauses 42 to 45 standing part of the Bill.
Many Members on the Government Benches talk about their ambition for global Britain. We share the desire for strong trading partnerships after we leave the transition, but that will be undermined by flouting international law, and the Government know that. The Foreign Secretary was dispatched to Washington last week to calm fears. This visit seemed to make things worse. As he left the United States, the man that the polls indicate will be the country’s next President said:
“We can’t allow the Good Friday Agreement that brought peace to Northern Ireland to become a casualty of Brexit. Any trade deal between the US and UK must be contingent upon respect for the Agreement and preventing the return of a hard border. Period.”
He was adding to the views expressed on both sides of the aisle in Congress that there will be no US trade deal if this Bill proceeds unamended. We should remember that the UK and the US are co-guarantors of the Good Friday agreement. It is a responsibility that the future President of the United States seems to be taking more seriously than the Government.
This debate is about our place in the world. It is about our values. It is about the sort of country that we want to be. If we cannot comply with our treaty obligations, how can we ever demand that others do so? We are giving a green light to oppressive Governments, from China to Belarus, who flout the rule of law. This Bill has deeply damaged trust in our country and our place on the global stage. In our votes tonight and tomorrow, we have an opportunity to rebuild our reputation to make it clear that we are a country that can keep its word, a country that can make agreements and stick to them, and a country that believes in the rule of law. Let us not fail in that responsibility.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: Order. Let me remind the House one more time that there is a very long call list, so please show time restraint when making contributions.

Theresa May: It is with some regret that I rise to speak on clauses 41 to 45. May I just say to the Minister that the overall intention of the Bill—of ensuring a functioning internal market within the United Kingdom—is absolutely right? I believe passionately in the integrity of the United Kingdom. It is not just a belief; I think it is good for the prosperity of all parts of the United Kingdom.
Today, we are focusing on the parts of the Bill that relate to the Northern Ireland protocol, part of the withdrawal agreement—the withdrawal agreement that was signed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister less than a year ago. I can say to the Minister that, in my view, clauses 41 to 45 have no place in this Bill. We are told that they are there because the EU either is acting in bad faith, or might act in bad faith. This is because the withdrawal agreement put a border down the Irish sea and the Government cannot accept that—but the Government did accept that when they signed the withdrawal agreement with the European Union, and I assume that, when they did so, the Government signed that in good faith. Yet here we have clauses 41 to 45 saying that the Government should have the ability to renege on parts of the withdrawal agreement to break international law.
There are three reasons why I believe that these clauses have no place in the Bill. The first, which has been referred to in earlier interventions, is that it is unnecessary. There is an arbitration process available. Under article 175, the ruling of the arbitration panel should be binding on the UK and the EU. The Government have acknowledged the existence of the arbitration procedure, but they are saying that they would enter into that in parallel with the operation of the elements of this Bill. The message, it seems to me, is very clear, which is, if we do not like the outcome of the arbitration panel, then we will break international law and we will not accept it. Yet, again, that is breaking the international treaty—an agreement that UK Government signed—because it is breaking article 175, which says that the view of the arbitration panel shall be “binding” on both parties. However, there is not just an arbitration process available. As the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) referred to, article 16 says:
“If the application of this Protocol leads to serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade, the Union or the United Kingdom may unilaterally take appropriate safeguard measures.”
Clauses 41 to 45 are not necessary.
Beyond that issue, there is the question of the impact of these clauses and the Government’s decision on the operation of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. I believe that the Government’s willingness unilaterally to abandon an international agreement or parts of an international agreement they have signed and their willingness to renege on an agreement they have signed will lead, as has already been made clear in an intervention, to some questioning the willingness of the Government to fully uphold the measures in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. That, in turn, will lead to some communities having less willingness to trust the United Kingdom  Government, and that could have a consequence on the willingness of people in Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom. So far from acting to reinforce the integrity of the United Kingdom in pursuit of trying to appear to be tough to the European Union, I think the Government are putting the integrity of the United Kingdom at risk.
These reasons alone should I think be sufficient for the Government to abandon these clauses, but perhaps the most compelling reason is my third, which is this Government’s wish to break international law and taking the powers to do so. As the Law Society and the Bar Council have said:
“These provisions enable Ministers to derogate from the obligations of the United Kingdom under international law in broad and comprehensive terms and prohibit public bodies from compliance with such obligations. They represent a direct challenge to the rule of law, which include the country’s obligations under public international law.”
I cannot emphasise enough how concerned I am that a Conservative Government are willing to go back on their word, to break an international agreement signed in good faith and to break international law.

Bill Cash: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Theresa May: I have to say to my hon. Friend that I wish I had £10 for every time I have given way to him in a debate or a statement over the last few years, but I will give way to him on this one occasion.

Bill Cash: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend. Is she aware that the EU itself and indeed many other states throughout the world, including many democratic countries, have persistently broken international law, and that this applies not only to other countries, but to the United Kingdom? There are many overrides of international treaties by the UK itself.

Theresa May: Let me get this right. My hon. Friend seems to be saying, “If somebody else does something wrong, it’s okay for us to do something wrong.” I am sorry, I do not agree with him on that point.
I recognise that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) has taken every effort to ameliorate the impact of these clauses, and the Government have accepted and put down their own amendment. But, frankly, my view is that to the outside world, it makes no difference whether a decision to break international law is taken by a Minister or by this Parliament; it is still a decision to break international law. This can only weaken the UK in the eyes of the world. One of the great strengths we have as a country is our commitment to the rule of law, and this will have been damaged. Our reputation as a country that stands by its word will have been tarnished, and the willingness of other countries to trust the United Kingdom and its values will have been reduced. So much for global Britain!
In 2018, when Russian agents used a chemical weapon on the streets of Salisbury to attempt to murder Sergei and Yulia Skripal—a nerve agent that led to the death of Dawn Sturgess and affected her partner, Charlie Rowley—I led the action. I called on our friends and allies to stand alongside the United Kingdom, and I led the action that resulted in 29 countries expelling an unprecedented 153 Russian agents from their borders.  We were able to do that because those countries had trust in the United Kingdom. Where will that trust be in the future if they see a United Kingdom willing to break its word and international law?
If we pass this Bill with clauses 41 to 45, and in so doing accede to the Government’s wish to break international law, I believe it will have a detrimental effect on people’s trust in the United Kingdom. As the United Kingdom negotiates trade deals around the rest of the world, why should anybody we are negotiating with believe that we will uphold what we sign up to in those agreements if we have said clearly, “If we don’t like it after we’ve signed up to it, we’ll break it”?
This is a country that upholds the rule of law. That is one of the things that makes us great; it is one of our characteristics. We propound and uphold the rule of law around the world. The Conservative party upholds the rule of law—it is one of our values and characteristics—yet we are being asked to tear up that principle and throw away that value. Why? I can only see, on the face of it, that it is because the Government did not really understand what they were signing up to when they signed the withdrawal agreement.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon described the Government’s action as unconscionable. As has been said, Lord Keen resigned because he said that he found it increasingly difficult to reconcile his obligations as a Law Officer with the Government’s policy intentions. Frankly, I find it difficult to understand how any Minister can go through the Lobby to support these clauses.
I consider that, in introducing clauses 41 to 45, the Government are acting recklessly and irresponsibly, with no thought to the long-term impact on the United Kingdom’s standing in the world. It will lead to untold damage to the United Kingdom’s reputation and puts its future at risk. As a result, with regret I have to tell the Minister that I cannot support this Bill.

Kirsten Oswald: It is a privilege to follow such a thoughtful and considered speech.
I rise to speak to amendments 31 and 32, in my name and the names of my colleagues. They require that the definition of terms used in clause 45 be determined only after an impact assessment of the UK Government’s obligations under international law has been carried out. I am also happy to speak in support of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends from the Alliance and the SDLP, and I look forward to further debate in Committee.
The SNP rejected the Bill on Second Reading because we will never support legislation that breaks international law—I am not actually sure why I have to say that. Our amendments seek to ensure that this Parliament understands the impact on its international obligations of any future decisions that it takes on the matters covered by the Bill. The UK Government have presented a Bill that not only threatens a breach of international law—a position that now seems to satisfy many Conservative Members—but was in itself a monumental act of bad faith that speaks volumes about their view of themselves and the world around them.
Last October, speaking about his withdrawal deal, the Prime Minister said:
“if we do this deal—if we pass this deal and the legislation that enables it—we can turn the page and allow this Parliament and this country to begin to heal and unite.”—[Official Report, 22 October 2019; Vol. 666, c. 826.]
The range of the amendments to this section of the Bill alone make it clear—not that we needed the clarity—that healing and unity can hardly be described as the highlights of his leadership.
In November 2019, the Prime Minister said:
“Northern Ireland has got a great deal. You keep free movement, you keep access to the single market”.
The Minister spoke about the Conservative manifesto, but it and the Conservative campaign boasted of the Prime Minister’s oven-ready deal. The Prime Minister was effusive in his support of the deal, calling it “very good”, “excellent”, “fantastic” and “wonderful”, but here we are, and he has changed his tune: far from his deal being oven-ready, it is now only fit for the cowp.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Is the hon. Lady telling us that she and her party believed the Prime Minister then?

Kirsten Oswald: I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. The short answer is no. Regrettably, I do not believe the Prime Minister, on this or other matters.
The Prime Minister said at that point:
“We have to protect the U.K. from that disaster”:
a disaster—and that is his word, not mine—that was negotiated by him and the same adviser as he has now. The Prime Minister visited Northern Ireland last month and talked of close co-operation between central and devolved Governments, but in the least surprising news of the day, certainly to viewers in Scotland, he did not engage with anyone outside Westminster in the development of his Bill. He excluded all of the devolved Administrations from the process of developing a so-called single market through the United Kingdom—plus ça change. Despite the clear relationship between this Bill and the peace process, as well as not engaging with the Northern Irish Executive, the Prime Minister failed to engage with the Irish Government. Despite the clear importance of doing so, he just breenged on regardless. We know why there was no engagement. It is because this shabby Bill—his shabby Bill—had to be put together out of sight of people that the Prime Minister could not control, people with respect for the rule of law and for accountability.
The SNP amendments would ensure that this Parliament would receive an assessment of the impact of any future action on these matters on the UK Government’s obligations under international law—a proper assessment, not the usual triumph of blustering bombast over good judgment by the Prime Minister. The people of Northern Ireland deserve better from the Conservative party, and our amendments recognise that. How can businesses and communities plan with any confidence when their future depends on the internal battles of a party that shows such scant regard for the rule of law?

Colum Eastwood: There has been a lot of talk in recent weeks about consent. The hon. Member rightly says that the devolved Administrations were not spoken to at all about this Bill. With all the talk about consent, it might be useful for the House to know that the  Northern Ireland Assembly has just voted in favour of the withdrawal agreement—in favour of sticking to the agreement that the British Government have made with the European Union, and that includes the Northern Ireland protocol. It is the voice of Northern Ireland and it is saying very clearly that this Bill is wrong.

Kirsten Oswald: I thank my hon. Friend that intervention. That is a key point for us. How can anyone trust a Government who do not stand behind the agreements they negotiate—a Government who cannot even agree with themselves?
The Prime Minister’s approach has led to several senior legal figures making a sharp exit. Sir Jonathan Jones, the head of the Government’s legal department; Lord Keen, the UK Government’s most senior adviser on Scots law; and David Melding, Shadow Counsel General in the Welsh Senedd, have all walked away. We have heard about Lord Keen’s letter of resignation, but it was particularly telling in respect of the matters that are before us today. He said:
“I have endeavoured to identify a respectable argument for the provisions at clauses 42 to 45 of the bill, but it is now clear that this will not meet your policy intentions.”
That is a damning condemnation from a former chair of the Conservative party in Scotland. No Member representing a Scottish constituency can defend these clauses—or, in fact, this Bill—and expect to be taken seriously when they claim to stand up for Scotland in this place.
We have also heard that the Sir Declan Morgan, the Lord Chief Justice—Northern Ireland’s top judge—warned that when Governments break international law, that
“might undermine…the administration of justice.”
That should concern us all. Even the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti), who is a barrister, felt the need to resign as the Prime Minister’s special envoy on freedom of religion. These are telling actions and words that should give the Prime Minister pause for thought and reflection. This Bill is a grubby power grab that we cannot and will not support, and this part, as it stands, hangs like a badge of dishonour around this Prime Minister’s term of office—however long or short that might be.
Unfortunately, the Prime Minister’s approach is being propped up by those with somewhat flexible standards. The Attorney General’s take could most charitably be described as mince, and the Lord Chancellor says he will resign only if the Government break the rule of law in a way that is “unacceptable”, which obviously, for a Law Officer, prompts the question: what is an acceptable way to break the law?
What of the effect of the Bill on the UK and Northern Ireland? In October last year, when he was still trying to convince us that he had negotiated a great deal, the Prime Minister said of his withdrawal agreement Bill:
“For those who share my belief in the transformative power of free trade…a new deal, enabled by this Bill, will allow us to sign free trade agreements around the world.”—[Official Report, 22 October 2019; Vol. 666, c. 830.]
By using this Bill to trash that deal, the Prime Minister has again exposed the ethical vacuum at the heart of his Government and undermined trust around the world—and   all the time he has singularly failed to deliver what is needed by Northern Ireland. As Professor Katy Hayward of Queen’s University Belfast put it,
“the one thing most hoped for from this bill—certainty—has become an even more distant prospect.”
The reaction from the USA has been clear. Presidential candidate Joe Biden warned:
“Any trade deal between the U.S. and U.K. must be contingent upon respect for the”
Good Friday agreement. Similarly, Nancy Pelosi said:
“If the UK violates that international treaty and Brexit undermines the Good Friday accord, there will be absolutely no chance of a US-UK trade agreement passing the Congress.”
Even Trump’s Administration are looking concerned.
The architects of the Good Friday agreement, from both sides of the House, are united in their condemnation of this Bill, and of this part of it in particular. They have called out this Government’s willingness to imperil the peace process and undermine the UK’s standing in trade negotiations.
All these issues would have been foreseeable if the Bill had been accompanied by an impact assessment, as the SNP amendments ask for. But fundamentally, at its heart, this Bill is ill conceived, confused and very damaging—frighteningly like the UK Government. Neither of them deserve our support.

Bill Cash: There are many essential reasons, in our national interest and on constitutional and legal grounds, and grounds of practical necessity, for the clear, unambiguous “notwithstanding” clauses in the Bill that have been discussed in the context of clauses 42 to 45.
I mentioned in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) that this was a question not just of whether the Euro pot was calling the British kettle black, but of whether, in the United Kingdom, we had ourselves overridden clear treaties. There are too many—they are far too numerous—to mention in this short debate. Of course, there is also an enormous number of examples of international law breaches by foreign states—not only, in Europe, by member states but by the EU itself, egregiously. Furthermore, there are examples of other countries, every one of them democratically elected, having done so. This question of values and reputation, and the issues that have arisen, has to be weighed against that context.
Of course, there are many international treaties, and there are many aspects—

Kirsten Oswald: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Bill Cash: In a moment. There are many aspects of international law that are sacrosanct—those in respect of torture, genocide and the rest, for example—and it is the fact that international law comes in many shapes, sizes and degrees, as I am sure we all know.
Basically, the point is that where the sovereignty of a nation is involved—the Vienna convention addresses this question—and where we are at the highest end of where the national interest lies, other considerations come into play. It is absolutely clear that in many instances, democratically elected civilisations—countries—have themselves broken these treaties.
This Bill does not, in my view, breach international law, but our rule of law must be based on our Parliament making our laws for our people based on our sovereignty, not judges. Indeed, Parliament itself voted for section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, without a single vote or even a voice raised in opposition, as far as I am aware, in either House on Second Reading. That Bill passed its Second Reading by as many as 124 votes.
The famous Lord Bingham clearly demonstrated this in chapter 12 of his book, “The Rule of Law”. He said clearly, with respect to the fact that it is our Parliament, not judges, that makes laws for our people based on sovereignty, that he had come across a number of judgments that had breached that principle. Wise judges do not want to make political decisions. His unimpeachable principles turn on their head the exaggerated claims with respect to the breaking of international law that has not taken place.
As I said, the German Federal Constitutional Court stated in December 2015:
“International law leaves it to each state…to give precedence to national law”.
Laying a Bill is not a breach of international law and is privileged. If a treaty is entered into on the reasonable assumption that a state of affairs would exist, but that does not transpire, the treaty is voidable. The agreement was written on the basis of the EU recognising our sovereignty, which has not happened.
International law is broken by democratic countries throughout the world and the EU, in their own interests. The list is long, but I will give a few examples. Western Sahara is one case. Another is migrants sent back to north Africa and Turkey. In 2010, when the EU broke the Lisbon treaty, Madame Lagarde said,
“We violated all the rules”
about the Greek and Irish bail-outs. The EU is unilaterally changing the bilateral channel tunnel treaty without our being able to prevent it. The EU threatened to use the WTO’s most favoured nation principle against the UK contrary to state practice, core principles of world trade and requirements negotiated in good faith.
I have another stack of examples, which I mentioned, where UK statute has overridden international treaties. There is no argument about it; it is there in black and white in the treaties and in the sections of various enactments that have overtaken and overridden international law.
It is understandable that some are bothered about this to a degree, but the fact is—

Kirsten Oswald: rose—

Bill Cash: I said, “to a degree”. Within the framework of international law, it is entirely a question of whether the degree to which it is done is commensurate with what is being proposed. The case of sovereignty goes to the heart of the extent to which we are entitled to take the action that we do.
This is less about breaking international law than about breaking the conditions in respect of state aid and in respect of the manner in which the Northern Ireland protocol would operate in the UK with respect to breaking the issues of contract and of the manner in which people work in this country. We are faced with a critical problem, the effect of which is that if we were  not to pass these clear and unambiguous clauses, we would find that we were subjected to EU laws—that we were subjugated to them—in a way that would ensure that we would not be able to compete effectively throughout the world or support the workers of this country, particularly in the context of covid.
Section 38 was passed by every single person in this House and by the House of Lords. There is no doubt about that. The notwithstanding provision is inviolate; it is in an Act of Parliament. These enactments do the necessary job to ensure the future prosperity and competitiveness of this country, and the opportunity for its people to move forward in an enterprise society to enable future generations after Brexit to guarantee their jobs, their businesses and their future.

Gavin Robinson: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), who has that classic flair of oratory, as when he said that some Members may be somewhat bothered to some degree. Whether we agree or disagree with him, he raises a smile through the Chamber.
I rise to speak in support of the amendments tabled by my party. Before I do, I want to reflect on the comments from the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). I regret some of the comments she made about the implications for relationships in Northern Ireland and the consequences associated with the Bill. Be it her contribution or many others on Wednesday and no doubt later today, there is an awful lot being said that is not only at cross purposes across the Chamber but completely misses the point. The right hon. Lady embarked on a political strategy that was encapsulated by the phrase “Brexit means Brexit”, and for nine months there was no greater clarity than that. Here we are four years later, and we know that what was outlined as a national aspiration and what was agreed to in a referendum by the people of this country is not being delivered for the people of Northern Ireland.
Members will remember the week in December 2017 when there was a flurry of activity around the formulation of what became the UK-EU joint report. They will also remember the work that had to go into getting provisions placed in that joint report at paragraph 50, which not only represented the principle that it was of no concern for the European Union to impede or impose upon the integrity of a member state, but stated:
“the United Kingdom will ensure that no new regulatory barriers develop between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, unless, consistent with the 1998 Agreement, the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly agree… In all circumstances, the United Kingdom will continue to ensure the same unfettered access for Northern Ireland’s businesses to the whole of the United Kingdom internal market.”
That was in paragraph 50 of the joint report, but it was never honoured in the withdrawal agreement.

Karen Bradley: The hon. Gentleman is making some powerful points. Does he recall that, when the first version of the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill was brought forward before the election last year, I and others tabled an amendment that would have put paragraph 50 of the joint report into the Bill, but that was not accepted by the Government?

Gavin Robinson: It was not accepted by the Government, but the right hon. Lady was a member of the Government who brought forward three iterations of a withdrawal agreement that did not honour that provision. That provision was not honoured in the earlier iterations of the withdrawal agreement.

Karen Bradley: The hon. Gentleman will recall that there was an addendum to the withdrawal agreement that was agreed and would have been lodged in the international court that would have made paragraph 50 part of an international agreement, but that was rejected by this House.

Gavin Robinson: The right hon. Lady may be right on that point, but here we are yet again, seeking to legislate domestically within the United Kingdom to right the wrongs of a negotiation that should never have advanced in the way that it did. Our Government fell into the trap of trying to provide an answer when they did not know what the problem was. They did not know what the future trading relationship was going to be. They did not know what the overarching trade deal was going  to be between the United Kingdom Government and the European Union, and yet they set out to solve the problem of the Irish border without knowing what the overarching provisions would be. That made no sense, and it led us to the position we are in today. Here I am this evening, asking Members to consider provisions that should be part of this Bill but are not and saying that there are aspirations associated with this Bill that should equally apply to Northern Ireland—the whole of the United Kingdom internal market, as stated in the joint report—but do not. That is hugely regrettable.
I spoke on Wednesday about clause 46, on the provision of financial aid, and my party’s amendment 22 to clause 47, to ensure that there was no restriction on such aid for Northern Ireland businesses. The response from Government was, “That’s great. Thank you very much. Let’s consider it on Monday.” Here we stand on Monday. I have enormous respect for the Minister, but we are hearing, “Don’t worry about your amendments. We’ll consider them in the Finance Bill.” There remain important concerns about the European Union state aid rules that will apply in Northern Ireland. There is nothing in this Bill, there is nothing in the Government’s approach, and there is nothing in their plan that seeks to amend or fetter the rule of EU state aid rules within Northern Ireland.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Can my hon. Friend explain to the House whether he believes predatory actions from the Republic of Ireland could in fact prevent Northern Ireland from having a free port in his constituency, a free port operational in the constituency of Foyle or a free port operational out of Warrenpoint? Preventing those policies, which would be state aid policies, would have a detrimental impact on trade, jobs and people’s prosperity in Ulster.

Gavin Robinson: I am very grateful for the question, and I know that the Government would respond by saying “Look in the Bill. It is for the Secretary of State and no one else to raise issues or notify the European Union on state aid issues.” I am concerned not just about the operation of that provision, but the chilling  effect that the application of state aid rules from the European Union has, when the Government consider the potential support that they could give to businesses in Northern Ireland. Again today, we hear that it applies only to goods and electricity, but I think it applies to services of those manufactured goods as well. I think there is a financial threshold of around half a million pounds, but much more clarity is required from the Government on the application of state aid rules in Northern Ireland, because all I hear is an effort to make sure that the EU does not encroach on GB affairs without any consequential understanding or recognition of—or aspiration to solve—the problems that we will face in Northern Ireland.

Sammy Wilson: While the Bill may state that it is up to the Secretary of State to notify the European Commission of any state aid, there is absolutely nothing to stop the Government of the Irish Republic—or indeed, another manufacturer who feels aggrieved that state aid has been given to firms in Northern Ireland that impinges on its ability to compete with those firms—taking a case to the Commission and going through the European mechanism at that stage. Once that happens, we have no representatives on the Commission or the Court, so it would be a one-way ticket as far as the complainant was concerned.

Gavin Robinson: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I mentioned the chilling effect. Arguably, if the UK Government and officialdom in Whitehall had not offered such religious observance to EU regulations over the past 40 years, this country would not have agreed to leave the European Union. We know that of other countries in the European Union, France has, en français, an à la carte approach to which regulations are important and which are not. The religious observance of regulations in this country has caused that chill factor and it is why people built up frustrations and resentment on the application of those regulations over the years. There is a fear that that could happen in this case.
Let us consider the Addison Lee case on state aid application of rules in this country. Addison Lee wanted to use bus lanes in London, but it was told it could not use them. Addison Lee took a case on the state aid implications because it thought the state was unfairly given an advantage over Addison Lee in London. The UK Government’s position was “Catch yourself on! It is a UK-funded public service versus a UK private business, and EU state aid rules do not apply” but the EU resolved that, yes, the rules were engaged because Addison Lee could equally have been owned by representatives from another member state. That is how the question was resolved, and Addison Lee can now use bus lanes. I have no doubt that the far-reaching implications of state aid law would open the opportunity for claims from elsewhere.

Jim Shannon: To back up my hon. Friend’s argument, the farming community and businesses across the whole of Northern Ireland have expressed their great concern about the different levels of state aid. They are not only referring to food, because subsidy comes in many forms. My constituents tell me that they are also concerned about being precluded from the tax reliefs available on  the mainland, because potentially our competitive ability may be greatly hampered by that discrepancy. Does my hon. Friend agree?

Gavin Robinson: I do agree. I know that the Minister went through a number of the amendments we have tabled and said, “Look, there are provisions about direct and non-direct discrimination and those still apply.” However, where a business is competing in a sector for which there are state subventions and subsidies in England, Scotland and Wales but where those same subsidies and subventions are precluded in Northern Ireland, there will be discrimination. There will be an unfair playing field in the economy of this internal market, and that square is not circled in this Bill. There are no satisfactory answers from the Government to say, “If we run with the implication of EU state aid rules in Northern Ireland, and if we support businesses in GB but not in Northern Ireland, how is there not unfair competition? How are there not direct or indirect discriminatory outworkings of the provisions of this arrangement?”
I want to draw the Minister’s attention to a useful document, which I hope he will spend time considering. I refer to the Northern Ireland stakeholder response to the UK’s research and development road map consultation, which considers clearly some of the things the Government could do under clauses 46 and 47 in providing financial support for sectors in Northern Ireland. We hear an awful lot in this Chamber about doubling down on levelling up. We know that research and development support across the UK is hugely uneven, and that the majority of that money goes into the south-east of England, to London and to the east of England, and that Northern Ireland and other regions throughout the UK do not get their fair share.
The stakeholder response is a collaborative piece of work by Belfast City Council, Belfast Harbour, Queen’s University, Ulster University and Catalyst Northern Ireland. It asks that the Government ring-fence R&D support, with a minimum of £250 million per year for Northern Ireland; that they create bespoke arrangements that allow for flexibility of funds for the Northern Ireland economy; that they appoint regional delivery partnerships; and that they are considering an ARPA—advanced research projects agency—for the cyber-security hub in my constituency, our FinTech hub, the advanced and high-end engineering and manufacturing in my constituency, and the aspirations of a digital free port in Belfast. That ARPA opportunity is well worth considering and it is well worth showing that even though we may have an uneven playing field, our Government are serious about doubling down on levelling up and will extend support to Northern Ireland.
I would love to go through a lot of the amendments, but I am conscious that I have gone over my self-imposed timeline, so I will just discuss the importance of amendment 68, which proposes a change to clause 40. It proposes that Northern Ireland Assembly consent would be required for any new arrangements or requirements for goods traded from GB to NI, and new requirements would not come into force unless they were agreed with the consent of the Assembly. It would also provide that:
“No additional official or administrative costs”—
arising from new requirements—
“may be recouped from the private sector.”
The Minister referred to the trader supporter service, and we know that the Government have said that there are going to put £355 million into that service at this stage. Huge questions remain unanswered for businesses in Northern Ireland, which have heard that they have unfettered access to the UK internal market. Some understand that that promise is one way; some understand that that promise is NI to GB. Some do not understand that there are huge constraints on GB to NI trade, because the Government gave that power away in the withdrawal agreement. They passed it to the Joint Committee and therefore they are only half of the equation. We know that the Joint Committee is considering what goods are at risk, but businesses are trying to access goods in the rest of GB and their suppliers are saying, “Are we able to send this to you? Will we be able to sell you these goods? Will we be required to file exit declarations? Will there be a cost for us doing business with you in Northern Ireland, one that we are not prepared to meet or you are not prepared to pay?” If that is the case, it makes a whole nonsense of this internal UK market.

Stephen Farry: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify for the record whether, if the amendment were to proceed and the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly were required, that would constitute a unilateral breach of the protocol in how that consent would be given? Could a petition of concern be lodged against it, thereby giving his party and anyone else—Members of Traditional Unionist Voice, for example— a veto over the way forward?

Gavin Robinson: The first aspect of that question is the intended breach, and the answer is clearly no, because amendment 68 talks about “new requirements”, and if the hon. Gentleman reads the content of the amendment, he will see that. The Northern Ireland Assembly has cross-community voting mechanisms not to provide vetoes but to encourage consensus. The hon. Members on the Benches to my left know exactly why those provisions were brought in, and they know the importance of them, but they tend to believe that they are worthy of use only when there is an issue for which they wish to use them. That is hugely regrettable. When I talk about the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly, I know that there are cross-community mechanisms to ensure that we get to a place of consensus. I do not believe in stalemate or in logjams. I have spent my political life trying to resolve them. I hope that when I contribute on issues in this House, people respect the fact that, although I do not necessarily agree with everyone, I try to get to a place where we can agree.
Businesses in Northern Ireland that buy from GB and wish to sell to GB want to know what their trading position will be. They were promised the best of both worlds, yet day after day they are learning about the bureaucratic and administrative burdens that are going to be placed upon them. They want answers. I know that the Minister will respond thoughtfully to the debate, and that he will pick up on some of the additional issues that I have raised on amendment 68. I hope he does that. I hope he offers some clarity and comfort for businesses in Northern Ireland, and I hope he outlines just how the Bill will assist them. I believe that it will not  do so, however, so I hope that he gives us some clarity as to what steps the Government are prepared to take in the Finance Bill to resolve these overarching and burdening issues, which remain unresolved, through the Joint Committee.

Bob Neill: This has not been the most edifying spectacle for the House of Commons over the past few days, but I hope that, at the end of the day, we can find a constructive way forward. I say that it is not edifying because, although much of the purpose of the Bill is important and valuable, to act in contemplation of something that most of us would regard as unworthy—namely, to breach an international obligation—is not something that one should ever seek to discuss lightly. Equally, it is not something that can ever be an absolute, because there can be certain extreme and pressing circumstances where such a derogation is permissible, but the bar has to be a very high one. That is why the discussions that have taken place between some of us and the Government, and the Minister’s response, are important, as far as my thinking is concerned. On the face of it, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) observed, without safeguards and caveats, clauses 42, 43 and 45 would without more ado be unconscionable, and we could not support them.
I want also to speak to my amendment 4 and the Government’s amendment 66, which I hope will provide a means of reconciling that position with the need to find a constructive way forward.

Bill Cash: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Bob Neill: If my hon. Friend will allow me to develop my point a little, I will of course give way to him in a moment.
Without a parliamentary lock, I do not believe that it will ever be appropriate for a sovereign Parliament to contemplate breaking an international obligation. There has to be a test for the parliamentary lock to be met.  I welcome, therefore, the Minister’s comments on Government amendment 66 and the test that he has adopted—and that was previously put out by Downing Street—at the Dispatch Box in respect of the high bar that would have to be met before the House could or should be persuaded to support such a course of action. For me and, I suspect, many other Members, the bar would have to be a high one.

Bill Cash: Does my hon Friend agree that that bar becomes very apparent when dealing with the essential question of sovereignty and whether the EU is recognising sovereignty in the negotiations in the way that was clearly stated in the protocol and in the essential elements of the agreement? We are sovereign and our constitution is special in that respect, compared with some other countries that have provisions in written constitutions.

Bob Neill: Let me put it this way: if my hon. Friend is saying that the test is something akin to that in article 46 of the Vienna convention on the law of treaties, which permits a departure from an international obligation if the violation that causes it is
“manifest and concerned a rule of its internal law of fundamental importance”,
I am not a million miles away from him. It is not an exact analogy and I do not think my hon. Friend was trying to make one, but it would have to be something similarly fundamental.
From my point of view, one could conceive—I use my words carefully—that a Government might be able to persuade the House that there was such a threat to the position of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom, and to the welfare of its economy and people, that one might take such a step. That is why, having thought and hesitated for some time, I am prepared to allow the Government the opportunity to make that case. None the less, it is a high bar, and I have to say that the fact that other jurisdictions—be it the EU or others—may have derogated from international treaties is not of itself persuasive. Many of us would need to be persuaded by the evidence that was brought in relation to the specific circumstances that might trigger the bringing into force of the three clauses under the arrangements set out in Government amendment 66. That is the point and will be the only test that will be relevant.

Alistair Carmichael: I have sympathy with the argument that the hon. Gentleman is making, but I have to say that the practicalities will take us in a very different direction. Last week, No. 10 Downing Street was briefing out that the hon. Gentleman and those who agreed with him would have the Whip removed if they followed through on his amendment. That is the pressure under which Government Members will be put. May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that it is possible the Government have accepted his proposition because they see it as something that in practice will not cause them any difficulty?

Bob Neill: I shall make two points to the right hon. Gentleman. First, he knows my record does not indicate that I am always in terror of voting against the Whip. Secondly, if anything like that was being briefed out, I never heard it, it was never said to me and I am shocked that any Government would brief such a thing without saying it to the face of the Members concerned.

Rehman Chishti: I can confirm that when on the Sunday I conveyed to the Government my concerns with regard to aspects of the Bill and said that on Monday I would be resigning as the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief because of real concerns about aspects of the Bill, no one at all from No. 10 ever said that the Whip would be withdrawn; instead, they said that they understood and accepted my decision.

Bob Neill: That does not surprise me; it is consistent with my own experience. I say gently to Opposition Members that the issues at stake are too serious to be part of what might otherwise be an understandable bit of partisan knockabout. That is not what we are talking about.

Martin Docherty: The hon. Gentleman mentions the seriousness of the issue; it is that serious that the British Government’s senior Scottish Law Officer, the Advocate General, has resigned. Does the hon. Gentleman really believe that  Scottish constituency Members, based on that premise, should walk through the Lobby and vote with the Government?

Bob Neill: It is presumptuous, it seems to me, of the hon. Gentleman to try to suggest how any of my hon. and right hon. Friends might choose to vote, just as it would be presumptuous of me to take a view as to why any Member does or does not remain a member of the Government. I have a very high respect for the noble Lord, Lord Keen of Elie. I just observe that his resignation came before the terms of the Government’s amendment were announced and it was tabled, and before the declaration which the Minister has read out from the Dispatch Box was in the public domain; I perhaps regret the timing of that, but I respect Lord Keen’s position, and that is unchanged, and I do not think relevant to the case that we must make here.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Bob Neill: I must press on now, and not take any further interventions for some time out of respect for others who wish to speak in this debate.
The Government now accept that they must come to the House and make their case. I think that they recognise that that case would have to be a persuasive one, and that the level of breach by the EU—which would have to be a breach of its obligation of good faith, which in turn would be a breach, it seems to me, of the obligations under article 26 of the Vienna convention to operate in good faith—would have to be made out before I and many others would be prepared to vote for such a course, because of the potential consequences for our international reputation and standing. That is why I am prepared to adopt the formulation of the Lord Chancellor that such a thing might be acceptable in extremis. This is not a carte blanche for the Government, and, in fairness, I do not think Ministers have ever taken it as such; I think they know that it weighs heavily to do such a thing. If the Government move amendment 66 at the relevant stage tomorrow, I will be prepared not to press my amendment, but it is to give the Government the chance to make their case as to why such an exceptional step should be necessary.
It is not wise or constructive to conflate the positions of domestic and international law in this debate; they operate in different spheres, and much of what we are looking at would be in relation to treaty law. A test that is not dissimilar—although it can never be exactly the same—to those considered in the Vienna convention is, therefore, not out of the way.
I welcome, too, the fact that the Minister indicated that the measures that would be initiated would include the arbitral provisions under the protocol to the withdrawal agreement. To try to oust those provisions would be a material breach of the agreement on our part, and would be unconscionable. Under certain circumstances the timeframe for that might not be capable of being resolved in such a way that we might not have to take some proportionate and temporary action ourselves to safeguard a vital interest, but I am sure the Minister and the House will note that I choose my words carefully in all those regards. This is not a green light to treating our international obligations lightly or cavalierly; it is an opportunity for the Government to justify why it  might be necessary. One cannot give undertakings as to what that might be until we have seen the evidence at the appropriate time, and I am sure the Government know that, too. But I hope that in practice this also has the desirable effect of enabling the negotiations to proceed and, at the end of the day—with good faith on both sides, which I hope, underneath, is still there—we can get an agreement with the European Union and leave on the terms of a deal. That may not be as good as I would have liked, but much of what I have been doing ever since the referendum is trying to mitigate a circumstance that I did not wish for but which I believe has to be addressed head-on for the sake of the country. If we can achieve an agreement, I hope these provisions will be otiose and we will see no more of them. The rest of the Bill is necessary because we need a proper and efficient working of our internal market once we leave the European Union. Therefore, my other motive for adopting the course that I have is not to obstruct the rest of the Bill needlessly.
It is in that spirit—which has, in fairness, been reflected in my exchanges with the Minister—that I set out the case for why the amendment is important to debate and to consider. If the Government are able to deliver in the terms that we have discussed, I will give them the chance to make their case, if it ever be necessary, in the profound hope that we never actually get to that.

Claire Hanna: I rise to commend to the Committee amendments 46 to 48, amendment 41 and new clause 7, which stand in the name of the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry).
There has been so much invocation of the Good Friday agreement, in favour and against the measures in the Bill, that I think it bears repeating some of what is and is not contained and implied in that generation-defining agreement. Those who have read the agreement will know that it does not really talk all that much about borders, trade and internal markets, because, frankly, the EU had settled all those things, and in 1998 the prospect of either Government choosing to leave the security, opportunity and prosperity of the EU would have been considered insanity.
Violence was the reason for the continuing fortifications. The Good Friday agreement was the document that articulated most clearly the argument, which had been made by John Hume and others for so many years, that violence was neither needed nor justified. It took the gun out of Irish politics and ensured that the purported justification of those behind the violence was addressed. The agreement was then endorsed by the people of Ireland, north and south, in overwhelming numbers, and endorsed by both Governments, as the only way to achieve your politics. It took away the excuse and put peaceful constitutional views to the fore. It meant that Unionists, nationalists and others could have their views with dignity and that we all had a decent pass forward.
The Good Friday agreement does not say much about borders and trade, but it does say a lot about relationships, aspirations, consensus and respect, and I think that those are the values that unfortunately have been most damaged and will be most damaged by the Bill. The declaration that accompanied the agreement—

Ian Paisley Jnr: Will the hon. Member give way?

Claire Hanna: Do you know what? I will give way, but only once, because for a few years your party held court here, and they were terribly damaging years for Northern Ireland, and it is time that the majority voice, which is against these proposals, was heard.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I am delighted that the hon. Member has given way. She casts a considerable aspersion on the Members of her party who were here for several years, but who obviously did not do as good a job in the House as she now purports to be doing, but I will leave that thought with her. Her party is in a coalition Government with my party and with Sinn Féin at the present time—obviously her words about co-operation will now ring very true indeed. Given that her party is in that coalition Government with Sinn Féin, is she actually telling the House that she believes that Sinn Féin or others are on the cusp of going back to terrorism because of what is happening here tonight?

Claire Hanna: No, obviously I am not. Only somebody with absolutely no understanding or who is so disingenuous would ask the question of where the violence comes from as if just a hope is a good enough reason to ride over a solemn peace treaty. Only somebody who either misunderstands or misdirects people would ask such a disingenuous question, and ask it repeatedly. We know that unfortunately there are many people of different political hues who have always sought to use violence as an excuse. That is why my party and others did the heavy lifting to ensure peace, while your party stood outside, waved placards and did everything it could to thwart the Good Friday agreement. So I will take no lectures or disingenuous questions, thank you very much.
The Good Friday agreement did talk about democratic and agreed arrangements, the democratic process and the primacy of the rule of law. It talked about close co-operation as friendly neighbours and partners in the EU. Each strand of the agreement has been damaged by the last few years, and they will be damaged further by the Bill. Strand 1, which deals with internal relationships in Northern Ireland, is damaged by injecting these binary choices and by trespassing into the devolved field. However, I will not, for reasons of time, go over the points that I and others made last Wednesday evening, about what undermining the devolved settlement might do.
Strand 2, which deals with relationships on the island of Ireland, will be utterly undermined by the creeping borderism that will follow from the Bill and the disruption of the north-south frameworks. Strand 3 deals with the east-west relationships, which clearly have been strained almost to breaking point over the past few years. It is because of the primacy of relationships that barriers to trade and aspiration offend the Good Friday agreement. Those who are seeking to say, “It isn’t written down anywhere, so there is no problem here” need to understand that.
The SDLP profoundly regrets the development of any barrier—east-west; the border in the Irish sea—for reasons of trade and economy, but also because we understand that borders have symbolic meaning to people, and we understand that this is particularly hurtful and egregious to those of a Unionist or British identity.
We have enjoyed, for the last 20 years, interdependence and free movement east, west, north and south, and it is Brexit and these decisions that are forcing the choice. It is not re-fighting the last campaign to remind people  that the problem is not the protocol, it is not the EU and it is not uppity Irish nationalists, but it is this Government’s failure to choose between a higher degree of alignment with the EU, which offends the European Research Group, the ability to diverge, which will upset and offend people of a Unionist background, and the nuclear option of forcing a hard border on the island of Ireland. Quite clearly, the last two weeks have shown and give some reassurance that the UK will have no trading partners if that is the course it chooses.

Bernard Jenkin: The hon. Member says it is not the fault of the EU, but can we just remind ourselves that it was the United Kingdom Government who gave an absolutely cast-iron guarantee that we would put up no infrastructure on the border between north and south in Ireland? It was the EU that kept threatening to do that, even though alternative arrangements could be developed to obviate that need. I fail to understand why people just do not want to believe that, except that they want to blame the United Kingdom Government, not the EU.

Claire Hanna: It is funny, but we do not hear so much about the alternative arrangements, and this from a party that has us all queuing around the estate because it could not put in place any alternative arrangements for voting. We heard a lot about them for a lot of years, but the magic sovereignty dust that was supposed to solve all of our problems has not yet been produced.
However, it is true that the choices, and they are very difficult choices, are being forced by that Government. We wish that the Government had picked the first of those options. We wish they had picked a higher degree of alignment with the EU, but they did not, and they cannot keep reopening the wound every time they try to deal with the contradictory promises they made. Whatever Bill the Government bring in, the choice will be the same. You cannot opt out of the biggest free trade bloc in the world and then feign shock when the trade is not completely clear, and you cannot refuse to do the first of the two things and then pretend that they are going to happen.
To suggest that any of this is about protecting the Good Friday agreement or the people of Northern Ireland is beyond a parody. We have worked intensively with businesses and other parties to try to address some of the barriers that we accept will exist, but we have to remind the House and others that it is this Government’s choice and the failure of the DUP for the last three years to do anything about those choices that has brought us to this point, and people must own those decisions. The Joint Committee is the place to address those difficulties and those operational issues, and there are the dispute mechanisms.
We see and we very much acknowledge the anxiety that east-west barriers to trade create, but even with the politics and the identity issues stripped out, it is a regrettable fact that the sea border is more practical and more manageable than a border across the island of Ireland, given that there are three such points of entry into Northern Ireland and 108 border crossings between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. I do not say that to be hurtful; I say it because it is true.
I bit my tongue several times during the speech from the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), whose opinion is always considered. I bit it for a number of reasons. Not only because of course your party opposed giving a consent mechanism to the Northern Ireland Assembly on article 50 and opposed giving consent on the sequencing, but because you speak about the sequencing. We have seen what has happened with the gamification of the sequencing and the gamification and using of Northern Ireland as a pawn by the UK Government in order to achieve outcomes and to justify no deal. The last thing I had to bite my tongue about was your saying that the petition of concern is not used as a veto. Members can look it up, but your party has used it 86 times. It used it numerous times to veto, for example, equal marriage for absolutely no reasons of offence to the United Kingdom.

Gavin Robinson: I think the second-last point—the penultimate point—was right, and I agree with the hon. Member. However, on the petition of concern and the cross-community voting mechanisms, she knows the reason they are there. She does not like it when people use them for reasons that she does not agree with, but she knows the reasons they are there. We were not the only ones to use it. We do not have the power to use it by ourselves. But the aspiration for us all must be building consensus.

Claire Hanna: It certainly should. I am not going to rehearse the figures, but I believe that the Democratic Unionist party used the petition of concern approximately two thirds of the time. You do not have the power to use it now because the electorate took that power off you, because it was wielded inappropriately so many times. I am acknowledging very clearly the barriers and impediments that this will create and the intentions of many to try to address those, but whatever the value of trade east-west—I see and acknowledge that value, but it is often cited by people who seem to know the price of everything and the value of nothing—the reality is that there are more people and more units that move up and down the island than move between the two islands. In fact, after 1 January next year, there will be more external crossings into the EU on the island of Ireland than there will be in the rest of the continent’s borders.
Those who support the Bill and the last few years of poor decision making have to acknowledge the intellectual and moral failure in a position that says that a border down the Irish sea is absolutely impossible technically and impossible to bear politically, but that somehow forcing one on the island of Ireland is dead-on, that we can deal with that with a bit of administration and that people are being overly sensitive. Imperfect though I acknowledge the protocol is, it is the baseline protection against the border, so repudiation of the protocol therefore makes a border a lot more likely, and inevitable.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May)—we believe that the clauses we are dealing with today are irredeemable—and I appreciate her interventions very much. Over the few years that she served as Prime Minister, while I frequently did not agree with what she said, I could always acknowledge that she was trying to respect the sensitivities. I respect those who are trying to manoeuvre their party to the right place. I know that that is a very difficult thing to  do, particularly when 21 decent MPs were sacked for refusing to vote for the previous Bill, and now they will be sacked if they do vote for the withdrawal agreement—I think that is the sequencing of things.
The amendments that we have tabled seek to protect the protocol and put the commitment to the Good Friday agreement into the Bill. While I appreciate the Minister’s words, my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) has made it clear that the words do not mean anything if you refuse the opportunity to give it legislative effect. Amendment 47 tries to put in place an understanding and an assurance that all of the Bill’s operation will be compatible with all the legislation that underpins the Good Friday agreement. While the UK’s intention is clear—I accept what it is trying to do, but I think it is doing it inappropriately and I do not think it will work—it is about rejecting EU jurisdiction, and the fact is that because of the international treaty that is the Good Friday agreement, international law has jurisdiction in Northern Ireland. That is welcome, and the rights and safeguards in the equality of opportunity section of the Good Friday agreement confirmed the incorporation of the convention on human rights into Northern Ireland law, with direct access to the courts and remedies for breach of the convention, including power for the courts to overrule Assembly legislation on grounds of consistency. That point is echoed again in strand 1 of the agreement, and it must be very clear that my party, certainly, could not and would not have signed up to the Good Friday agreement without those commitments, but this Bill casts them into the wind.
It is clear that we are not talking about narrow and specific breaches. These are going to be open-ended and unchecked powers, and there will not be any qualifications or consultations to test their basis. I sought assurances on Wednesday night from the Minister that there would be limits to the powers, and I did not receive that assurance.
Members may think that this is all a big game of chicken, or a negotiating strategy or whatever with the EU. I urge them to remember the words of the late John Hume, a former Member of this House, who said very clearly, “Victories are not solutions”. The agreement that he designed talked about the obligations of the British and Irish Governments to promote the harmonious and mutually beneficial relationships between the peoples of these islands. I dearly hope that that can somehow still be our future. We are all in the business of trying to deliver solutions for our constituents. I appreciate that some of you are trying to deliver a Brexit and your Brexit deal, however ill-advised I think that is. I am trying to deliver stability and reconciliation in Northern Ireland, but I believe your Bill prevents both of us from proceeding.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Graham Brady: Order. I did not interrupt the hon. Lady, but I would just like to remind Members, especially new ones, that if you say “your”, as in “your party”, it is a reference to my party, and it was not my party. Also, I remind people to use temperate language when they can. There were just one or two instances where the hon. Lady was sailing a little  close to the wind. I just say to all Members present that there are still a lot of people on the call list. The closer to five minutes the speeches are, the more of our colleagues will be able to contribute to the debate.

Theresa Villiers: I will bear your comments on timing in mind, Sir Graham, and try to rattle through. It is a pleasure to follow a very powerful speech from the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna). We may disagree on some quite fundamental things, but I very much welcome her input to this debate.
I rise to support the Bill and the Government amendments, because we need to ensure that goods and trade can flow freely across our United Kingdom without unnecessary barriers. I see regaining control of how we regulate our economy as one of the key benefits of Brexit. That is not because I want any kind of race to the bottom. I want to maintain high standards. In some areas, there is clearly a case for introducing more rigorous regulation, for example to bring an end to the live export of animals for slaughter or fattening, but regaining domestic control over regulation will enable us to produce rules that are more targeted and more effective at tackling the problem they are designed to address, and which we can update more quickly as circumstances change. All those could be crucial in improving our global competitiveness, and in supporting jobs and growth during this time of grave economic damage caused by covid-19.
I spent six years in the European Parliament before coming to this place and I was heavily involved in debates on the creation of new EU regulation. I spent nearly two years of my life on the markets in financial instruments directive. I can say, from seeing the process at first hand, that it is long and painful to produce EU legislation, and that it frequently produces outcomes that are inflexible, bureaucratic, heavy-handed and create unnecessary costs. I believe that in this House and in this nation, we can do better. We can deliver a regulatory system that is more responsive, more agile and more proportionate.
As we have heard from many speakers, and as we well know from the debate over the past year, the Northern Ireland protocol will inevitably have an impact on the flow of goods across the Irish sea. That was one of the most painful compromises that was made in reaching agreement on the withdrawal treaty. Certainly for me that was one of the things I found most difficult in deciding whether I could support it. However, there can be no doubt that the Government are pressing ahead with implementing the protocol. Extensive preparations have been made by the UK Government for a new system for compliance with both customs and sanitary and phytosanitary obligations, as required by the protocol. It is simply not true to allege that the Government, with this proposed legislation, are somehow ripping up the protocol or repudiating the treaty.
What we cannot do is let the European Union run down the clock on securing agreement on the scope of the key concept of goods at risk of being re-exported to the EU, because that would mean a default would kick in requiring customs compliance for all goods coming from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. That, of course, would lead to a full customs border between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, violating article 4 of the  protocol. It would also change the status of Northern Ireland within the UK, contrary to the provisions of the Belfast agreement.
Concern about the potential for the EU to adopt  an unreasonable and absolutist approach to the question of goods at risk is, frankly, compounded by the Commission’s current refusal to list the UK as a country is deemed fit to export food to the EU. As Environment Secretary, I was able to secure that authorisation in the event that we had left at the end of January without an exit treaty, but I have to say that it was not an easy process. The UK’s compliance with all current EU laws, including on food and animals, should mean that giving us third country status is a straightforward administrative decision, so it is therefore very hard to understand why the EU is withholding consent, for example, for us to export products to the European Union, which it permits from countries with which it has far weaker links and which have, arguably, far less rigorous standards. They include, to take just a few, Russia, Serbia, Chile, Thailand, Ukraine and Cuba. Even the Republic of Iran is on the approved list for certain products.
In these circumstances, I can support the precautions taken in clauses 41 to 45 to allow Ministers to make decisions on how aspects of the protocol will operate in practice if these important matters cannot be resolved in the Joint Committee. I honestly think that these clauses are unlikely ever to be used, but what they can do is prevent the EU from being able to use article 5 provisions to exert leverage over the United Kingdom to try to lock us into its regulatory orbit, bound by its laws and its Court.
Leaving the European Union does not mean becoming a client state of the European Union. That is why I voted three times against the first version of the withdrawal treaty, and that is why I am backing this Bill in the Lobby this evening.

Stephen Farry: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers). Although I fundamentally disagree with her on Brexit, I certainly recognise her work in Northern Ireland when she was Secretary of State. I refer, in particular, to her work on the Stormont House agreement, though I think it is worth noting that that is another agreement that the Government are in the process of breaching as well.
I primarily want to speak to the amendments of which I am the lead sponsor—amendment 41 and new clause 6—but also to make wider reference to part 5 of the Bill. In brief, amendment 41 seeks to ensure that everything in part 5 is consistent with international law obligations and also with the Good Friday agreement in all of its parts, though it would be preferable to strike clauses 42 to 45 from the Bill in their entirety, but, at this stage, amendment 41 is a catch-all to try to ensure that it is compliant insofar as that is possible. New clause 6 is about putting into law the correct approach to addressing the issue of export declarations and other exit procedures in terms of trying to get a good resolution through the Joint Committee.
I want to make some general comments about the threat to international law that is contained in part 5 of the Bill and to echo that the Government amendment is essentially cosmetic. It does not address the issue. I am  someone who is usually a gradualist and who will bank progress, but this is not that type of situation. This will not convince anybody of the UK’s good intentions. In essence, the threat to breach international law will still be codified in the legislation and that is not a basis on which any state can do business internationally. It will undermine the ability of the UK to manage its existing agreements, and also to conclude future agreements. The reputation of the UK internationally will fall with very serious consequences. Our ability to hold other regimes to account for breaches of democracy, human rights and the rule of law will be compromised; and the UK does have a strong record in that regard, or at least had a strong record up until this particular point in time.
More specifically, part 5 will undermine the ability of the UK to conclude a future relationship arrangement with the European Union. That will have severe consequences for the UK economy. To me, it seems as if a dead-end approach is being adopted by those who claim to want such a deal, and I am not quite sure how that will be a sustainable position.
Even beyond that, the prospects of a US-UK trade deal are very much called into question. For those who have the fantasy of an Atlanticist approach to replace the relationship with our nearest neighbour, I really struggle to understand how they believe that the approach they are taking will actually allow that dream to be realised. Of course, we should all want a deal with the United States, albeit one that we negotiate from a position of strength—people have some genuine concerns about that—but I am not sure that people fully appreciate whow difficult that will be, particularly in terms of Congress and what Speaker Pelosi and indeed some members of the Republican party have said. This is an ultimate dead end, and Members who still believe it is doable need to reflect very seriously on what has been said to them.
I will also comment on what I think is a major misunderstanding, or lack of understanding, in some parts of the House with respect to the Good Friday agreement. At times, I get the sense that the Government are almost twisting the understanding of the Good Friday agreement to fit their particular political objectives. It is important that Members understand that a fault line runs right through Northern Ireland. Anyone familiar with history will well appreciate why I am saying that. Northern Ireland is both a divided society and a contested space, particularly with regard to the latter in that there are different constitutional aspirations for the future of that part of the world. We have been on a journey through the Good Friday agreement, but the work of building integration and promoting reconciliation is still very much in progress. More needs to be done.
It is true—this is where the Government are placing all their emphasis—that the principle of consent is a core aspect of the agreement. I concur with that, and indeed it is recognised fundamentally within the withdrawal agreement, although people may have different aspirations regarding where that goes in due course. However, the agreement is also about the interlocking relationships, the internal dynamics in Northern Ireland, the north-south relationship and the east-west relationship, and the wider context of the improvement of Anglo-Irish relations, which gave rise to the agreement in the first place and which, up until now, have been working to try to ensure that the agreement stays on course.

Paul Girvan: Will the hon. Member give way?

Stephen Farry: Yes.

Graham Brady: Order. It is not possible to speak from those Benches. The hon. Gentleman must find another place in the Chamber.

Paul Girvan: Thank you, Sir Graham. The hon. Member mentioned the protectionism in the Belfast agreement. That is its name: the Belfast agreement. Unfortunately, from a Unionist perspective, the protections that we were sold as ensuring and enshrining our right to be part of the United Kingdom until such time as the people of Northern Ireland decided otherwise are being eroded from below our feet by the withdrawal agreement and the clause associated with Northern Ireland. That has to be recognised. Do you recognise, as a Unionist, that this does not give you much comfort?

Stephen Farry: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention. I think his question was aimed at me, rather than you, Sir Graham. First, just to give Members some encouragement, Members from Northern Ireland can sort out some choreography at times in terms of speaking, so all is not lost entirely, but it is important that the hon. Member appreciates a number of points.
As I said, the principle of consent is hard-wired into the withdrawal agreement. At the same time, however, I think it is naive not to accept that what had been a relatively stable situation in Northern Ireland around the constitutional question has become much more fluid in recent years, to a large extent because of the fallout from Brexit. Whichever way things emerge over the coming months there will be some degree of political instability in that respect, and it is incumbent on us all to try to come to terms with that, to manage that and to keep people on board, making Northern Ireland work over the months and years to come.
I also stress to the hon. Member that another way of looking at the agreement is that it was, in essence, a grand bargain. We are approaching the centenary of Northern Ireland next year. For most of its history, Northern Ireland was a contested state and some people did not accept its legitimacy. We had a situation, for example, where the Irish constitution had a claim on the territory of Northern Ireland through articles 2 and 3.
With the Good Friday agreement, arguably for the first time we had a sense that the vast majority of people on the island of Ireland accepted the legitimacy of Northern Ireland as an entity, albeit with the ability to change recognised as part of that agreement. That was a major win, particularly for Unionism. At the same time, there was a recognition of the interlocking relationships—in particular, the north-south aspect—on the island of Ireland. The problem is that Brexit has come in and destabilised that. In particular I have to say to my Unionist colleagues that their charge headlong into Brexit, given that grand bargain, was most irresponsible and short-sighted.
It would not have been possible for the Good Friday agreement to be concluded if the UK and Ireland were not simultaneously part of the European Union—in particular, the customs union and the single market. The protocol is a product of the UK’s decisions, choices  and red lines on Brexit, so if there are concerns, grumbles or complaints about it, it is a product of decisions taken primarily by people in this Chamber over the past number of years.
In essence, there is a trilemma at the heart of this: the UK set out three mutually incompatible objectives, only two of which can be realised at any one time. The first was that there would be an open border on the island of Ireland, the second was that the whole of the UK would leave the customs union and single market, and the third was that special measures for Northern Ireland were ruled out. The first has been a given for the best part of four years, and was rightly recognised at the start of the Brexit negotiations. The second was the determination of this House, which ruled out a softer version of Brexit, with the entire UK remaining part of the customs union and single market—an outcome that would still have been consistent with the referendum result. The third is something that the UK has essentially had to concede through the protocol.
Whatever way we look at this, when a decision was taken to leave the customs union and single market, some sort of interface was going to have to be managed with the European Union’s single market and customs union. The backstop was the first attempt—I believe it was much maligned and a missed opportunity. The protocol was the next alternative, and the Prime Minister bought into it last October. It is an attempt to square an impossible circle, but we have to do our best in that regard; there will not be a neat and easy solution. The protocol is imperfect, but it represents the bare minimum of what is required to address the particular challenges and circumstances that Northern Ireland faces.
Like the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna), I do not want to see any borders anywhere inside these islands, but we have to face the reality that some line will have to be drawn on a map, and wherever it is, some political, emotional and psychological implications will arise from it. It is easier to manage that down the Irish sea than on a land border, as a purely pragmatic analysis of the situation. As has been said, there are seven crossings down the Irish sea, and potentially more than 200 on the land border. People talk about the value of east-west trade, and I certainly recognise that, but the counterpoint to that is to recognise the sheer number of movements on the island of Ireland. The opportunity to have some degree of regulation is more readily applied on the Irish sea interface because there is more dead time, in terms of air and sea travel, than there is on the land border, with land-based transport and much more just-in-time delivery. Those are the sad choices that we are being asked to face up to in Northern Ireland.
We need to make the protocol as light touch as we can to move from what is essentially a solid line on a map to a dotted line. We need to work through the Joint Committee to address the outstanding issues and agree the future relationship. That would make the application of the protocol much easier. To make progress in both respects, the UK has to build up the trust and confidence of the European Union. Essentially, the UK is asking the EU to take it on trust that certain procedures that would otherwise be rigorously required under the terms of the protocol can be disapplied, with flexibilities and modifications shown. The situation with the UK threatening to breach the very withdrawal agreement that gives rise  to the protocol will not give the European Union confidence that the UK will honour any flexibilities that it chooses to grant through the protocol.
New clause 6 sets out perhaps one example of the type of situation I am referring to. In essence, the protocol reflects the fact that Northern Ireland remains part of the UK’s customs territory, but the EU customs code is applied down the Irish sea. That was the compromise—I stress that—worked out last year by the Prime Minister, among others.
The EU is entitled to police the integrity of a single market and customs union and to determine how that takes place. However, I firmly believe we can obtain the forgoing of export declarations and other export procedures through discussions in the Joint Committee, if there is that degree of confidence. It should be possible to agree a situation where those things are disapplied entirely, or some alternative statistical method to work out what is actually moving into Great Britain, or indeed some method of differentiating between Northern Ireland urgent goods and urgent goods for elsewhere on the island of Ireland or further afield. All that is eminently doable.
In the same way—Members have alluded to this coming back in the Finance Bill—the issue of goods at risk moving from Great Britain into Northern Ireland can be addressed through the Joint Committee. The default—I stress that it is the default—is that all goods at this stage will be treated as at risk. Obviously, we have to reduce that as far as possible, and ideally to zero, and put in place different measures, but once again that has to be done through goodwill being built up.
My plea to Members is to not go down the line of breaching international law. That is entirely self-defeating, counterproductive and will not only undermine our position in terms of Northern Ireland, but will also do huge damage to the UK’s economy and standing in the world.

Iain Duncan Smith: I am conscious that everyone needs to get in, so I will try to be as brief as possible. Most of the things I will say have probably already been said and certainly will be said in the course of the debate. I make no claim to uniqueness.
I rise to support the Government’s Bill with particular reference to clauses 40 to 45, which we are considering today. After all, the free flow of goods and trade in the UK is critical and is part of the constitutional settlement—the settlements between Ireland and GB and, later, Northern Ireland and, earlier, Scotland and England. Those principles are at the core of what we believe and what we consider to be immutable, and therefore they cannot be changed. There are areas in the protocol that, if improperly used, could affect those principles, and that cannot be allowed.
I remind colleagues that in the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020—nobody seems to have referenced this—our potential intentions were very clear in section 38, which was part of the legislation when it was passed. As I recall, the Opposition did not vote against that provision. If that was the case, it sent a very strong signal to the EU that there was every likelihood that we considered that constitutional settlement in the UK to be above the implementation of the  withdrawal agreement, should the agreement end up damaging the settlement. That was quite clear. In fact, it was so clear that when the 2020 Act had passed both Houses, interestingly the EU still went ahead and ratified its end of the agreement through the European Parliament, knowing full well that that was in the Act. If the EU disagreed with that provision or disagreed with the principle, it should not have ratified the treaty at its end, but it made no bones about it and did it.
The effect of clauses 40 to 45 is just to protect the basic implementation of the UK’s internal market in terms of its constitution. I recognise the concerns of my colleagues in Northern Ireland about the application of state aids in Northern Ireland as well, but in this case the provisions allow state aids in Great Britain to be dispensed under the framework devised in this country, and not elsewhere. It seems intolerable to me that we should leave the EU only to find that it has hold of us in a number of ways that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) said, were categorically never the intention.
I do not believe that the Bill actually breaks international treaties, particularly not at this stage. I think article 46 in the Vienna convention on the law of treaties is clear about that. These things are always open to interpretation —I accept that—and different lawyers will take different views, but generally I think that at this stage in particular the Bill does not do that. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) was clear that that was one of the reasons he is prepared to go along and accommodate the Government on this point, and that is quite reasonable.
The combined effect of article 4 of the withdrawal agreement and section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 is that key parts of the withdrawal agreement and the NIP are already part of domestic law. That therefore makes it impossible for the Government, should they see that the EU is not acting in good faith at this point, to ensure that there is, in a sense, a backstop.
I raised a point with the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) earlier about the EU’s behaviour in this. My point was not, “Look, the EU doesn’t always recognise international law, as applied internally, and therefore we shouldn’t.” That was not the point. The point I was making was that we talk a lot about trust, and there is a lot of debate here about trust, with people saying, “The UK will lose all trust should it do this; no one will ever trust us again”—I do not believe a word of that, by the way, because so many other countries, including the UK, have previously breached international law, for lots of good reasons—but the EU binds it in that it is its right to breach international law.
That was very clear, as I said earlier, in Kadi v. Council and Commission in 2008. The Advocate General made it very clear that the EU does not necessarily have to bind into international treaties with direct effect if they clash with its constitutional settlement. They do so time and again, which has given us a very long list of occasions when the EU has done just that and refused to implement all or part of international treaties. I do not extol its virtues in that regard; I simply regard that as a reality.
What does that say? Does the rest of the world say that the EU cannot be trusted in international agreements? So far, apparently not. So far, it has done deals with a  number of different countries and not one of them has said, “We don’t trust you, because you breach international law,” which it does. But the UK has also breached international law. In fact, it was a Labour Government that refused to implement, in about 2005, as I recall, prisoners’ voting rights, which came directly from the European Court of Human Rights. All that happened was that the Government said no. It took 10 years before that was resolved. It was not resolved because the UK Government—I think at that stage it was a Conservative Government and my right hon. Friend  the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) was Prime Minister—implemented it. No, they negotiated again over its implementation and observance, and came up with a fudge.
That is the point about international law: it is not always directly applicable by the letter. Ultimately, when it is not agreed that things should be brought in, they require negotiation subsequently. That is why I say that my right hon. Friends in the Government are absolutely right to use these clauses of the Bill to make it clear to the European Union that, should it wish to pursue the line that it does not agree to work hard in the Joint Committee to resolve these matters about application, which are always a problem, the UK still reserves its right not to breach its own constitutional settlement, which is a primary cause of most breaches of international law around the world.

Mark Harper: I intervene only because the prisoner voting issue is one that I remember very well, because I was then the Minister responsible for that policy area. Indeed, our friend David Cameron, who was then the Prime Minister, made it clear in his interview last week that his view is not as firm as some former Prime Ministers, because he recognises that there are these clashes. His point was that we should not break our commitments as a first course, but that having that as a backstop, with parliamentary control, is actually something worth considering. The example that my right hon. Friend gave is a very sound one.

Iain Duncan Smith: That is why I gave way to my right hon. Friend—because he was there. I think he was a very good Minister too, by the way, for what it is worth.
The point is that for 10 years, Labour Governments and other Governments simply refused to put prisoners’ voting rights through. Finally, there was a fudge negotiation, where not all of what was asked for was agreed, but it was agreed that what had been done, I think on furlough—as I recall, prisoners on furlough had voting rights—was okay. That was not what was asked for.
Let us not be too pompous about this idea that international law is some God-given gospel that says, “Absolutely nobody can ever trespass away from  this.” Many of these things are fudged anyway, and implementation is very important. I come back to section 38, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) initiated. That made it very clear that we would, if necessary, place our constitutional law ahead of both of those.
I make that point because in truth, we are now  in exactly that state. That is why I believe that I can happily vote for this tonight. I am happy that, following   the debate between my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and the Government, they have tabled amendment 66, which will give Parliament a chance to say yea or nay when the moment comes. But we are not in breach until we decide to implement this. This has been done before. It is important to show that we want to do this if necessary, but we would rather find an agreement between the parties.
I come back to the point that I made about good faith in principle. I see that Monsieur Barnier has threatened our negotiators that, if they do not agree with him—he has not, by the way, wanted to move anywhere near the Joint Committee to discuss these matters—the EU will, if necessary, not give us the status of third country. That seems a bizarre threat to make. The list of third countries, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) mentioned, is long and peculiar. Belarus, for example, which we watch almost nightly on the television, would have third country status. We would not have it, apparently. Others include the Central African Republic, China, the Islamic Republic of Iran—the list goes on. I think there are now 137 countries that would have third country status, but apparently to Mr Barnier, it would be quite acceptable for a country that has been very close to the EU for years to not have third country status. I think it is a hollow threat, but it is a peculiar threat to make, and it gives an indication of bad faith.
The EU is meant to avoid bad faith in this, and so are we. The whole idea of the Bill is to say, “Stop. Let’s consider this again. We do not want—and you should not want—to end up in a situation where we are running around on your laws. This is not what the agreement was meant to be, and we are not prepared to see our constitutional settlement trashed in the pursuit of your own vainglorious idea that somehow you’re going to keep hold of us and run us afterwards.” As my right hon. Friend said, we did not vote to be a subsidiary state; we voted for independence. That is the key point.
I am going to vote for this Bill, and I vote for it with a clean heart. I vote for it because so many areas—from state aid, to transfer of goods and agriproducts to labelling—will be affected unnecessarily. If the EU seriously wants to help and to get this done, it needs to return to the table, go into the Joint Committee as it said it would and accept what we are saying: we will not allow our constitution to become the prisoner of an EU that wants to have all power over the UK.

Joanna Cherry: I rise to speak in favour of amendments 43 and 44, in my name, and to support the amendments tabled by the Scottish National party, our friends from the SDLP and our friend from the Alliance party.
I will focus my comments on my amendments, which I tabled to work out just how far this Government are prepared to go in ousting the jurisdiction of the domestic courts in relation to judicial review and review under the Human Rights Act in clause 45, as it appears on the face of the Bill. I also wish to highlight, as I mentioned in an intervention on the Minister, that, in so far as clause 45 seeks to restrict judicial review in Scotland by circumscribing the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Session, this not only trespasses into devolved territory   but may well breach another treaty: the treaty of Union between Scotland and England, article 19 of which preserves the independence of the Scottish legal system.
Before I address my amendments in detail, for the avoidance of doubt, my primary position—and I find myself curiously on the same ground as the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May)—is that clauses 41 to 45 should not stand part of the Bill. Everything we heard from the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) was designed to hide from us the fact that we are talking about a bilateral treaty that was entered into by the Prime Minister and the United Kingdom less than a year ago, to deal with a specific situation that arose between the United Kingdom and the European Union; and the most controversial part of that treaty—the one dealing with Northern Ireland and the north of Ireland—is the one that this Government are seeking to drive a coach and horses through. That is what we are talking about, and that is what is so wrong.

Bill Cash: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Joanna Cherry: I will make some progress.
Such excuses as those that the Government’s Law Officers who remain in post have sought to make for this do not stand up. I am very proud, as a member of the Scottish Bar, that Lord Keen of Elie resigned last week, and I am proud of the reasons he gave for his resignation. The only thing I would say to him is, “What took you so long, Richard?”, but apart from that I am very proud. I think it will be very difficult for the British Government to find anybody of suitable seniority from the Scottish Bar to step into his shoes, but I am waiting with some amusement to see who they might find.
Talking of rather less senior lawyers than Lord Keen of Elie, the English Attorney General has said that the English doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty means that it is lawful for the United Kingdom to override the obligations signed up to in the withdrawal agreement. I think that that is what the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green was saying when he referred to section 28 of the EU (Withdrawal) Act. This idea that the English doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty somehow trumps international law is legally illiterate. It is what we would call at the Scottish Bar—

Bill Cash: Will the hon. and learned Lady give way?

Joanna Cherry: No, I am going to make some progress.
It is what we would call at the Scottish Bar a load of old mince. That is not just my view; as I said in an intervention, it is the view of the United Kingdom Supreme Court, which said in the first Miller case, at paragraph 55, that
“treaties between sovereign states have effect in international law and are not governed by the domestic law of any state.”
I am terribly sorry to disappoint Conservative Members, but no matter how much they love their doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty—no matter how much it means to them—it cannot trump the obligations freely entered into by their Government under international law.

Bill Cash: Will the hon. and learned Lady give way?

Joanna Cherry: No, I am not going to give way.
It simply does not work that way: Britannia does not rule the waves any longer and has not done so for some time.
I regret to say that while I have the greatest respect and the highest regard for the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), the Government amendment that his efforts have secured is wholly inadequate to meet both domestic and international concerns about this Bill. I cannot do much better than repeat what the Irish Foreign Minister said this afternoon: a Government with an 80-seat majority having a parliamentary lock is not much of a reassurance to any of us. I really do not think I need to say any more than that. Once more, we have a ruse to solve the problems of the Conservative party rather than a ruse to address our international legal obligations.
My amendments 43 and 44, as I said, seek to deal with clause 45. The English Bar Council and the Law Society of England and Wales have said of clause 45 that it
“would exclude judicial review of any regulations made under clauses 42 and 43 on grounds of incompatibility with domestic law…as well as international law.”
That exclusion of judicial review would also mean excluding any human rights review under the Human Rights Act or, indeed, the Equality Act 2010. As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) said in her very eloquent speech, human rights are of course integral to the Good Friday agreement. It is a travesty that regulations made under clauses 42 and 43 should not be subject to judicial review or to human rights review across Great Britain, but a particular travesty in Northern Ireland. It undermines not just the principle of the rule of law but the principle of access to justice. It also contravenes article 4 of the withdrawal agreement, which the British Government freely signed up to, in which they undertook to ensure a right for individuals to rely directly on withdrawal agreement provisions.
It is difficult to be certain how the courts would interpret an ouster clause such as clause 45, but precedent suggests that it would be quite hard for them to uphold it unless it is expressed in unequivocal terms. My amendments seek to clear this up. Amendment 43 would exclude the Human Rights Act and the European convention on human rights from the definition of domestic and international law, and amendment 44 would ensure that
“nothing in Clause 45 ousts the jurisdiction of domestic courts in respect of judicial review of regulations made under Clauses 42 and 43.”
Subsequent to my tabling those amendments, the Government tabled amendments 64 and 65, which appear to acknowledge that judicial review claims could still be brought in certain limited circumstances. I am interested to hear from the Minister what those circumstances would be. Do they include the normal judicial review grounds of illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety, or will they also include review on the grounds of human rights? I look forward to hearing from him  on that.
My final point is the most important point from a Scottish point of view. In so far as clause 45 seeks to interfere with judicial review in Scotland, it is interfering with a rather different beast from judicial review in England: the inherent supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Session in Edinburgh. In doing that, it strays into devolved territory and would therefore require a legislative consent motion, which I very much doubt would be forthcoming. Put simply, the Scottish Parliament is not in the business of ousting the court’s jurisdiction on judicial review or human rights grounds—nor should it be and neither should this Parliament.
Most importantly from a Scottish point of view, the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Session is an inherent jurisdiction, which is not conferred on it by legislation but has been there since its inception in 1532. It therefore predates the treaty of Union between Scotland and England in 1707. Legislation seeking to narrow the scope of that inherent jurisdiction risks falling foul of article 19 of the treaty of Union, which preserves the independence of Scotland’s legal system.
In Scotland, rather to our surprise, we learned from the UK Supreme Court that putting the Sewel convention on a legal footing did not protect us from the Government driving a coach and horses through it. As the legal position stands in the United Kingdom, it seems that the Government can get away with passing primary legislation that interferes in devolved matters without a legislative consent motion. A breach of article 19 of the treaty of Union might be a different matter, however, because the question of whether parts of the treaty are so fundamental that they cannot be overridden by an Act of this Parliament has been considered by courts north and south of the border, but never entirely resolved.
I simply remind Members that the doctrine of the supremacy of Parliament is an English doctrine. Even Dicey, the great high priest of parliamentary sovereignty, was prepared to recognise that those who framed the treaty of Union between Scotland and England believed in the possibility of creating an absolute sovereign legislature that was still bound by certain unalterable laws. Many of us in Scotland believe that one of the unalterable laws of the treaty of Union is that this Parliament cannot interfere with the inherent jurisdiction of the Court of Session.
Both those problems—the in-roads into the devolved competence and the undermining of article 19 of  the treaty of Union—will continue, notwithstanding Government amendments 64 and 65. I suspect that the Government have not really thought about that because, let us be honest, they do not often think about the impact on Scotland of what they want to do. Many people in Scotland, including my fellow members of the legal profession, will see that as another example of the Government’s total disregard for devolution and for Scotland’s separate and distinct institutions.
That is yet another reason why for Scotland the only way out of the mess that the Conservative and Unionist party has created over Europe is independence. I am glad that so many more people in Scotland are realising that daily. [Interruption.] It is a terrible dreadful bore for Conservative Members, but I remind them that we spend an awful lot of time listening to them bang on about the European Union and how it prevents them  from having their way. Well, the Scots are pretty sick  of this Parliament preventing Scotland from having  its way.

Martin Docherty: From a historical perspective, my hon. and learned Friend may agree that we need to go back to the 15th or 16th century, because this is a modern-day English reformation that seeks to impose in Scotland a modern-day Brexit prayer book. The Kirk rejected it then and Scotland will reject it now.

Joanna Cherry: That is correct, and it is worrying to hear my hon. Friend talk about the Kirk as he and I were both brought up in the opposite persuasion, but of course the Church of Scotland is also protected by the treaty of Union. So Members on the Government Benches can mock away; they should feel free to continue their mocking, which is seen in Scotland, and simply feeds the desire for Scotland to go a different way. They should keep up the mocking, because it is helping my party’s cause and it is helping the cause of my country.

Karen Bradley: It is an honour to rise today in this debate, following a number of very thoughtful contributions from right hon. and hon. Members across the Chamber. Although it is an honour to be called to speak today, I cannot pretend that it is an enjoyable experience, and that is because of the conflict that I feel. I feel desperately uncomfortable. I want to support the Prime Minister and the Government, and I know how the Minister feels. I have sat on that Front Bench far too many times, knowing that people behind me did not agree with my position.
I want to support the Prime Minister. I want to see the whole United Kingdom leave the European Union, respecting the referendum result, but I am desperately uncomfortable about being asked to vote to break international law. My instinct tells me that what the Government are asking me to vote for tonight is not the right thing to do or, to be charitable, may not be doing things in the right way.
The Government have been clear—they are on the record—that paragraph (5) is a breach of the withdrawal agreement, and we are angels dancing on the head of the pin as to when the law is broken. The law will be broken, if these clauses are used. It might be at Royal Assent, or it might be at commencement of the Act. It might be when the order is laid after the parliamentary vote—I thank the Government for agreeing to respect that and for agreeing to that amendment. I would like to hear from the Minister exactly what the Government’s position is now as to when the law will be broken, because no parliamentarian wants to walk through the Lobby knowing they are about to break the law.
Much has been made of the role that respecting the Belfast Good Friday agreement has in this debate. Let us be clear: the Belfast Good Friday agreement was the result of great statecraft and the power of words over violence, but it was also a triumph of compromise—or, as I used to be told I had to call it, accommodation. It was a settlement that meant that people living in Northern Ireland could be comfortable in their own identities, be that British, Irish, both or neither. As the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) said earlier, it was written at a point when both the UK and Ireland were members of the EU. I want to be absolutely clear: the  Belfast Good Friday agreement was not contingent on our both being members of the European Union. It was a result of great statecraft, compromise and people being prepared to lead, and it would have happened if both countries had not been members of the same economic bloc. But the fact that both countries were EU members meant that the foundations of the Belfast Good Friday agreement—the Northern Ireland Act 1998 that this House passed—were written without the need to deal explicitly with matters that European citizenship and membership conferred. There was no need to write about citizens’ rights and how somebody who identifies as Irish and lives in Northern Ireland can exercise their right to be a member of the European Union when the country in which they reside is no longer a member of the European Union. It did not go into the points on customs and declarations. It did not talk about that because it did not need to. In fact, the reason we have the Bill—and I want to make it clear that I support the Bill as a whole; it is part 5 with which I have a problem— is because we need it, as the settlements on devolution were written at a time when we were a member of  the European Union. We did not need frameworks  on agriculture, because matters that will be settled by the devolved Administrations were governed by rules in Brussels.
I support our taking back control of those matters. Again, I have to make it absolutely clear that this has nothing to do with leaving the European Union. It is about how we make sure that we do so in the right way, so that I can hold my head up high and look people in the eye and say that I am proud to be a parliamentarian in this Parliament, which respects the rule of law. We have to remember that the world will judge us by the way in which we respect the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, even more than our breaking the withdrawal agreement.
This is where language matters. I know, more than many, how important language is in Northern Ireland. I have said things, I have misspoken, I have made throwaway comments, and I have regretted them enormously, because they hurt people. People who have been through more hurt than any of us could ever imagine were hurt by words that I said, and I regret that more than just about anything that I have done in my political career. I have much to be proud of, but I regret having hurt people. Language is important, so I urge everyone—on the Front Bench, on the Opposition Front Bench, and in all parts of the Chamber—to remember the language that we use, because our allies are listening to what we say. They are not looking at the intricacies of amendment 64 or new clause 3—they do not really know or care—but what they hear is the headline. They hear us saying that we are going to break international law, and we are prepared to do it. That is really powerful.
I am a Conservative with a large “C” and a small “c”. I am also a Unionist, and I make no apologies for being a Unionist. As a Conservative and a Unionist, the precious thing that matters to me is our Union and the peace process in Northern Ireland. I tested myself on this over the past few days. How will I explain this to my grandchildren—my children have already told me what they think about this particular issue—when history judges us? I try to put myself in the shoes of other people, and I try to think how it feels today for someone  who identifies as Irish and lives in Northern Ireland. I want them to stay part of the United Kingdom, but they identify as Irish. They are perfectly allowed to do so—the agreement says that they can—but I want them to be part of the Union. If we as Unionists want people to remain in the Union we need to talk about the power and benefits of the Union. We need to talk about those shared institutions such as the NHS and, dare I even say, the BBC, which are respected and make people proud.
We have to talk about our international reputation. We have a permanent seat on the Security Council. We are full members of many international bodies. We punch above our weight. What the UK is known for, and what people whom I want to stay in the United Kingdom want to see, is our respecting the rule of law. We need to be on the highest moral ground. There cannot be ambiguity. Protecting our Union is the most important thing to me, but we cannot do so in a way that alienates people and damages our reputation.

Martin Docherty: On the reputation of the United Kingdom and the identity of Irishness and Britishness in Northern Ireland, why was it up to Emma DeSouza to drag the right hon. Member’s Government through the courts fully to exercise their rights to identify as Irish and their rights as a European Union citizen in the High Court in Northern Ireland?

Karen Bradley: The hon. Gentleman would have to take up the reasons why the case was taken with the lady in question, but the DeSouza case is a clear example of how the Northern Ireland Act 1998 did not address these matters. I have been clear, in many interventions since I left my post last summer and while I was in post, that respecting the right of everybody who lives in Northern Ireland to identify in the way that they are comfortable with is incredibly important and we must respect it. So I say to the Minister: part 5 should not be in this Bill. The Government should not ask MPs to vote for an illegal law as a negotiating tactic. This part should be in a separate Bill, if these clauses are needed, and it should be debated separately; it should not be polluting what is otherwise a good and necessary piece of law. All possible steps to avoid needing these clauses should be taken.
I say to the Minister that I am undecided as to which way I will vote this evening, because I respect the fact that Government have moved and compromised, and I understand that that is a difficult thing for Governments to do. But I ask the Minister to give me clarity: if I walk through the Lobby today, am I breaking the law? If I walk through the Lobby today, will the law be broken as a result of my doing so? Will I have the answer for me at 3 am, not for my constituents or others, that I have done the right thing and that this will lead to a better result for the UK?

Hilary Benn: It is a great pleasure to follow that fine speech by the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley). I want to concentrate on how we get out of this mess without breaching international law and the treaty we signed up to. Four issues have caused all this: the question of exit summary declarations, the definition of “at-risk goods”, state aid and third country listing. The Bill deals with only some of those; further legislation is threatened to deal with the rest, but one has to look at them together.
The first thing I want to say is that it seems the Government are in a state of hopeless confusion on two questions. The first is: is the EU negotiating in good faith or not? I asked the Prime Minister that last week at the Liaison Committee and he told me it is not. Earlier that same day, the Northern Ireland Secretary told the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee that  the EU is negotiating in good faith, and indeed the Government’s response to that Committee’s report confirmed that. I do not know whether that makes the Minister, for whom I have a great regard, the adjudicator in this matter, but perhaps he might offer his opinion in his wind-up, because the Government do not appear to be of one mind.
Secondly, I believe the Minister referred in his speech—I tried to write down the phrase as I recall it—to, “Harmful legal defaults that were never intended to be used” or words to that effect. If they are legal defaults that the Government object to, it really does raise the question: why did the Government sign up to those legal defaults when they negotiated the protocol and the withdrawal agreement, and signed that and extolled its virtues to the House of Commons?
On exit summary declarations, there is a place for this and other concerns to be resolved, which is in the Joint Committee, through the article 16 process. The House needs to ask itself why the Government have said so little thus far about their intention to use article 16 if a satisfactory agreement cannot be reached; I did not get an answer from the Prime Minister last week and, with respect, I did not get an answer from the Minister today, but it seems that the Government have so little faith in the mechanism they negotiated that they have decided that they need to take powers to breach the terms of the treaty, even though—I remind the Minister—article 168 of the withdrawal agreement says that, “For any dispute between the EU and the UK arising under this agreement, the EU and the UK shall ‘only’ have recourse to the procedures provided for in this agreement. This Bill drives a coach and horses through that sentence, which the Government agreed. In the statement that Ministers put out last week, the Government said that they would use the provisions of article 16 “in parallel with” the powers they wish to take in this Bill. In parallel? I really do not understand that as an argument, because surely they should use the mechanism they have negotiated first, and then if they are absolutely determined to break international law, they can get to that subsequently.
I come back to the point about the Joint Committee. Why have the Government not shared with the House the proposals they have made to the EU side about how goods at risk can be identified? It is simply not good enough. Part of the reason why the Government have got into such a mess is that they have not shared with us how the negotiations are going and have then suddenly produced a remedy that is contrary to international law to solve a problem the contents of which we are not aware of because Government have not shared with Members how things are going.
This is not an academic issue: many businesses that trade into Northern Ireland have absolutely no idea, with just over three months to go, of what the arrangements are going to be—none. There is a responsibility on both parties—the EU and the UK—to give them some clarity.  Have the Government proposed using, for example, tariff lines as the way to define goods at risk? Or products and shipments, or companies as the basis? To those who have looked into the issue in great detail, it seems that those are probably the three broad approaches that might be taken. I ask the Government to please be open with the House of Commons on this matter.
On state aid, I find it impossible to believe that the Government did not realise what the full implications of article 10 might be. Everybody recognised that it brought into the ambit of the state aid rules what happens in Northern Ireland, but had it really not occurred to Ministers that there might be reach-back—I think that is the expression—implications for state aid in the United Kingdom? This is currently a theoretical issue, because there are not any cases. The Minister will be well aware that in the wake of covid, the EU Commission has significantly relaxed the state aid rules. Other EU members are giving state aid to all sorts of companies. The question is how the matter is going to be resolved by means other than resorting to the breaking of international law.
There is a great puzzle in respect of the Government’s position. When the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster appeared before the Select Committee on the Future Relationship with the European Union on 11 March and we asked him whether businesses that trade out of England into Northern Ireland were going to be subject to the full panoply of state aid regulations, he replied:
“No, we do not believe so.”
That was in March, but apparently the Government do now believe so. What happened between March and now to lead them to that conclusion?
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster also said:
“The subsidy regime that the UK proposes to put in place after we have left the EU”—
we have now left the EU—
“will be one that the EU will recognise as a robust system.”
Here we are in September, and of a robust system for state aid there is no sight yet. How can that be the case? We read reports in the paper that the reason is because Ministers cannot agree on what kind of state aid policy they want.
The publication of such a policy is urgent for two reasons: not only for the purposes of sorting out the problem of potential reach-back, but for making a breakthrough in the trade negotiations. To be fair to the EU, it has moved from saying at the beginning, “You must follow all our rules on state aid in perpetuity,” to now saying rather plaintively to the Government, “Would you be so kind as to give us just an inkling of what your state aid regime is going to look like?” To announce that we are going to follow the World Trade Organisation rules is hardly a revelation, because as an independent member of the WTO we are obliged to follow the WTO rules. As we know, though, they lack important details and do not cover services.
The sooner the Government publish a state aid regime to answer the EU’s question, the sooner they can help the trade negotiations to move forward. Assuming that an agreement could be reached on that regime as part of the negotiations, the Government could, as the Minister will know, use article 13(8) of the withdrawal agreement to amend article 10, which is the cause of the potential problem—namely, reach-back.
The Bill does not deal with third-country listing, and no Bill could, because it is a regulatory decision of the European Union about the terms on which it lets third-country food and animal product imports into its jurisdiction. I happen to think that if the EU were to deny us such listing, arguably the UK could take the EU to the European Court, on the grounds that it was a perverse decision, or indeed the UK could certainly invoke article 16, on the grounds that denying the UK third-country listing was a breach of the good faith obligation under article 5.
I suspect that this is a fuss about nothing, because I can conceive of no such circumstances. The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) read out the list of all the other countries that have been given third-country status. Well, he cannot tell me that if those countries have been given it, then the EU, which knows what our rules are today—the Government, to be fair to them, have made it clear what the rules are going to be on 1 January, unless and until they decide to change them—will in the end say, “We have no idea how you are going to operate the rules.” I do not think that will be a problem, because it is not a terribly sensible way for two very large trading entities, with big and important agricultural industries, to behave.
In relation to the offending clauses in the Bill, I heard what the Minister said and what the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) had to say about the Government’s proposals. In response to what the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) said a moment ago, whether the illegality is the passing of the law all the way through to the laying of the regulations is not the point. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) and the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), made clear in their own excellent speeches, the damage has been done. It was done the moment the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland got up in the House of Commons and admitted that it was contrary to international law. Normally in a legal argument, the lawyers in the House—I have great respect for them—would be saying, “It breaches the law,” “No, it doesn’t,” “Yes, it does,” “No, it doesn’t.” Well, that conversation was cut dead when the Secretary of State said that it does. That is really irrelevant, it seems to me. I think it is counter-productive.
I urge the Government, as have other Members, to withdraw the clauses and get back to negotiating “the great deal”—I sometimes feel nostalgic for the words that echo through the mists of time: “One of the easiest trade deals in history”; “A deal with the exact same benefits.” I would like the country to achieve such a deal, and the Government’s responsibility now is to stop messing about with this Bill and to negotiate a deal, because time is short, before we leave without one because they fail to reach an agreement.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Graham Brady: Order. I remind the Committee that there are still a great many Members on the call list. I therefore urge brevity, in the interests of all those waiting to speak.

Rehman Chishti: It is a real pleasure and a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), for whom I have huge admiration and respect. I sat in this Chamber on 2 December 2015 and listened to his speech on countering Daesh in Iraq and Syria. He took a principled position then, as the shadow Foreign Secretary, and it was one of the best speeches this House has heard.
I also agree with the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the comments of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who said on 8 September that what was being proposed in the Bill
“does break international law in a very specific and limited way.”—[Official Report, 8 September 2020; Vol. 679, c. 509.]
That is completely and utterly unacceptable. I am also a lawyer, and I will refer to that comment a little further in my speech.
I accept that the majority of the Bill is necessary for an effective United Kingdom single market when we are no longer subject to EU rules. I campaigned for Brexit, my constituency voted 65% to deliver Brexit, and my voting record is the same as that of the Prime Minister and many of those who sit in Cabinet with regard to delivering Brexit. Brexit meant many things to many people, but for me it was about sovereignty. The British public elect their Members of Parliament, who have the final say on the laws that govern our country and our citizens. But Brexit must be delivered in the right way, respecting the United Kingdom’s commitment to the rule of law, and as a country that stands by the word it gives. That cannot be compromised on.
I have real concerns about clauses 42, 43 and 45 of this Bill. Brexit was about sovereignty—taking back control of our laws, borders and money—but under those provisions, we would defer that authority to Ministers, who could then, unilaterally, withdraw from an international agreement passed by this House. How can that be sovereignty? It cannot. I agreed with the former Attorney General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), when he gave his speech to this House on 14 September, about those three specific provisions. He is a great man, and I had the privilege to be his Parliamentary Private Secretary when he was the Attorney General.
For me, there can be no compromise about one’s core beliefs, and my core belief is a respect for the rule of law. If you give your word, you have to honour it. What  the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said on 8 September—we sat in our parliamentary offices, and we listened to him—is that
“this does break international law in a very specific and limited way.”—[Official Report, 8 September 2020; Vol. 679, c. 509.]
What are we saying to our citizens—that they can break other laws in a specific and limited way? Our country is going through difficult, challenging times and we are asking people to adhere to guidance, yet we have a Minister of the Crown saying that from the Dispatch Box.
There is something called honour, and for me I could not serve as the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief. I conveyed that message to the Government last Sunday, and I was told that the Government would not be accepting the amendment put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill). On that basis, on  Monday I took the decision to resign my position. We talk about being patriotic, and our national anthem says:
“Long may she reign. May she defend our laws”—
and “defend our laws” is what this is about.
I am grateful to have been the Prime Minister’s special envoy. It was a real privilege and honour to  serve as the United Kingdom’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief. We took forward 17 different recommendations of the 22 in the Truro report, but I also helped, along with the United States and the ambassador from the Netherlands, to set up the international alliance to promote freedom of religion or belief around the world. We used to say to countries, “Respect article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights”. People can have whatever faith they want or no faith, but others must respect that.
Hon. Members would expect the Prime Minister’s special envoy for the United Kingdom to go along to the table and say, “I think we should do this at the Security Council or we should that at the United Nations General Assembly. We should do this at the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe or we should do that at Human Rights Council.” But after what the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said at the Dispatch Box on 8 September, how can one go and lecture others when we are in this situation?
The question people ask me is: why, then, are you supporting Government amendment 66? I am supporting amendment 66 for this reason. If we look at the Order Paper on Monday 14 September and Tuesday 15 September, we see that amendment 4 put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst had only 13 signatories. That amendment is for parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament should decide: this Parliament enacted its support of the withdrawal agreement, and if it now wants to come out of it, this Parliament should say so, not defer that to Ministers. However, only 13 Members of Parliament had signed it. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, and I am also grateful to the likes of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), who came in in 2019, who signed the amendment.
The amendment asks for parliamentary sovereignty, but on Monday the Bill passed by 77 votes in this House, so how do I know I can get 40 votes to overturn clauses 42, 43 and 45, which I could never accept. No hon. Member would accept clauses 42, 43 and 45, so when we are in that position, do we accept amendment 66, rather than the amendment put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, being pragmatic and being reasonable? I say this as someone who for three years, from 2004 to 2007, worked with the former Prime Minister of Pakistan who lost her life fighting for democracy, going to discussions in the Foreign Office with the Foreign Secretaries Jack Straw and David Miliband and looking at the transition to democracy. There always has to be give and take, being pragmatic and being realistic. On that basis, to avoid having to put clauses 42, 43 and 45 in the Bill, I support the proposals in Government amendment 66 for parliamentary oversight.
I want to finish with a quote, Sir Graham. I know time is of the essence. Parliamentary sovereignty and parliamentary scrutiny are of the utmost importance to each and every one of us. We are all among equals. We all have a voice. We take into account the views of our constituents, and we come here and we represent them. Over summer, I read a brilliant quote from 2010 by a former Member of Parliament, before I came to this House. I will read the quote. Some will recognise the person. He is a man of great integrity and he did the right thing. This is what he said about taking Parliament seriously:
“a word to the coming generation of politicians. I have one simple message: take Parliament seriously. If we, the elected, do not, why should anybody else? By all means…support the programme on which one’s party was elected, but we are not automatons. We are not sent here merely to be cheerleaders, or to get stiff necks looking up at the fount of power. We are here to exercise our judgment—to hold Ministers to account for the powers they hold. And that means proper scrutiny. It means insisting that Ministers engage seriously with Parliament, and that they are open to dialogue.”—[Official Report, 25 March 2010; Vol. 508, c. 486.]
On that basis, I am grateful to the Prime Minister  for listening, engaging and ensuring that we have amendment 66, should these matters come before the House and if the United Kingdom ever deviated from its commitment. Initially, the provisions were put forward under statutory instruments, under which the Government could have put forward a 90-minute affirmative motion, with the Minister standing at the Dispatch Box for an hour. Please, as I tried to ask him earlier, will the Minister clarify that when and if this comes back to the House, there will be a full debate, with as many Members of Parliament who need to speak being able to?
One of the great things I did was to represent our country at the canonisation of St John Henry Newman, a great British saint with global impact. I will end by quoting his “Lead, Kindly Light”:
“…I do not ask to see
The distant scene; one step enough for me.”
When and if the Government look to bring these measures forward, please do it so that there are appropriate checks and balances at every level by this House.

Martin Docherty: It is good to follow the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti). I congratulate him on the moral choice of resigning from the Government, although I remind him that when it comes the law of the country, there is the law of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
As a Scottish nationalist, I have often tried to stick to our maxim of leaving Ireland to the Irish, but in these constitutionally fraught times I feel it is necessary to remind the British Conservative and Unionist party of the histories and stories across these islands that give us an understanding of where we find ourselves today. We can be in no doubt that this Government will seek to portray this perfidious power grab as actually strengthening the devolution settlement, which so many of us have fought so hard to secure, but we know very well from the history of Northern Ireland that rewriting devolution by decree is simply unsustainable.
Let us move beyond the bluff and bluster of this Government’s Front Bench and the obsequious chatter of their pliant Back Benchers, and remind ourselves  very clearly that a Union requires Unionists at both ends. Usually, when I look over to my Scottish Conservative and Unionist opposites—I do not see any here tonight—I see fellow Scots who are equally passionate in their convictions for our nation of Scotland as any on these Benches. They are Unionists who are looking desperately to the south to see their convictions mirrored by English colleagues, but I am afraid that the only colleague they found tonight was the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May).
As we debate the Northern Ireland protocol here, we see a foreshadow of what is about to happen to my fellow Scots who have placed their faith in this Union, because while people in Northern Ireland collectively voted to remain within the European Union, they have seen not only that express wish disregarded but the very fabric of their daily lives become part of the negotiations over the past three years. Now they see the future of that quotidian offered up as a gambling chip by this Government. One party, the Democratic Unionist party, sought to follow its Unionist convictions by backing this Government, but its Members have instead seen themselves, cajoled, seduced, rebuffed and tossed aside before being asked again to come back into the warm embrace of the Conservative party.
Let us look into the forgotten past, to the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act 1972, in which this House decided unilaterally to pluck the powers of the people of Northern Ireland invested in their Parliament in Stormont and bring them here, where they could be “better administered”, quite against wishes of the Unionist leadership of the day. I am surprised not to have heard more about that Act, given that it would be almost entirely analogous to the situation in which we find ourselves today, were it not for the fact that direct rule was again discontinued only last year, thanks in part to the efforts of the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith). Of course, like anyone in the Conservative party with any talent or opinions of their own, he was sacked by the Government—I intimated to him and others that I intended to mention them in my speech this evening.
In the face of the deteriorating security situation in 1972, and to avoid the possibility of an unwelcome result in a Stormont election, Westminster unilaterally disbanded the Parliament that had sat since 1920, deciding instead to govern Northern Ireland through Orders in Council laid before this House of Commons. Not only was this done against the express wishes of their supposed Unionist allies—Government Members should maybe put their phones down and learn a little bit of history tonight—but the supposed temporary nature of the arrangements lasted for more than 30 years, until the Belfast agreement. That was power previously held by the peoples in these islands being taken back by a Conservative Government. So how have they managed to do it all over again?
At the start of my speech, I brought forward the idea that a Union must have Unionists at both ends, yet throughout the whole Brexit process this Government have not stopped to think once about their own actions and how they affect this Union, least it be for the purposes of a cheap soundbite. So, as the Governments   of all shades in Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh beseech the one across the House from us today at least to listen to their concerns, far less treat them as equals in the family of nations, we owe it to ourselves to ask whether they understand what “Union” means at all. We in Scotland remember that it is not an Act of Union but a treaty of Union, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) reminded us earlier. While that framing may not be possible in other nations, it has certainly spoken to myself and to many of those who do not share my opinions on the constitution, as it demonstrates that this is at least something of a partnership of equals.
We on these Benches will see our colleagues from the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Benches trooping through the Lobby to support this Bill because they believe it strengthens the Union, but if they were here, I would simply ask them: do you believe the Government when they say that the Union is their first priority? As we debate the Northern Ireland protocol today and think of the past three years through the eyes of Unionists here—the fine words of flattery, followed by flummery and forgetting, the lack of understanding and the taking for granted—I ask my Unionist pals: can you trust these people? I mentioned the temporary provisions Act of 1972. I could just as easily have gone back to the Government of Ireland Act 1920 to demonstrate how, when the Unionists on these islands set aside their own convictions and interests in pursuit of a mythical greater good, it rarely works out for them. As my pals seek to vote through this power grab to allow a Government far away from the people they represent to rewrite their unwritten constitution and to award themselves sweeping powers over the people of Scotland, please don’t kid yourselves: this Government have been willing to pick up and put down Unionist leaders for as long as the Union has existed. They did it to Edward Carson, they did it to Brian Faulkner, they have just done it to Arlene Foster and, let us be absolutely clear, they are about to do it to Douglas Ross—gutted, washed out and tossed aside like a haddie on the pier at Buckie.

Andrew Murrison: Well, Sir Graham, it is difficult to follow that. I remember your enjoinder, Sir, that we should stick to five minutes. So far, nobody has met that challenge. I thought that the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) was going to do so several minutes ago, but he did not.
I rise to support this Bill. I especially support clause 11 and part 5, and amendment 66, the “break glass” amendment. It reflects in all important respects amendment 4, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), the Chair of the Justice Committee. We have all been grateful to him for the consideration that he and others have given to this matter. I appreciate the agony that many hon. and right hon. Members have gone through in trying to work their way through this Bill and reconcile it with their views on international law.
The hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) spoke about values and asserted that our reputation was at stake. Last week, we saw how the UK stands up   for international law. We saw a graphic demonstration of our values when perhaps others fall short. In the middle of the channel—not a pleasant place generally speaking, and it certainly was not last week—there was an inflatable dinghy containing 16 Afghan refugees and asylum seekers. They were people in peril on the sea, and they were being shepherded by the French navy not to safety, but to British territorial waters where, of course, eventually they were picked up by Border Force and conducted to a place of safety. I am proud of that, not only because it demonstrates our British values—something that many may be uncomfortable with—but because, in doing that, we were complying with one of the most fundamental of international treaties, the United Nations convention on the law of the sea of 1982. There is no grey in this treaty, no ambiguity, and it strikes at the very heart of what we are in this country. Indeed, it strikes at the very heart of our humanity, because we save life and we ask questions later.
Others have described violations of international law by the European Union and others, and I am certainly not going to rattle them off again. We heard eloquent contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) in which they listed some of the treaties that have been mutable. Clearly, UNCLOS was mutable on the part of our largest continental neighbour last week, but it was not for us and, for me, that is the message that goes to the international community, not some fine debate about this particular measure that we are discussing this evening. That message will have gone out loud and clear and, on that, I am extremely proud indeed. What is clear from the list that others have trotted out is that international law is a contested space, and sometimes it is mutable and can be overwritten.
I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) on this: she said that two wrongs do not make a right, and generally speaking she is absolutely correct, but by listing the occasions on which international law has been breached, written over, mutable or contested, we are setting the context for what we are doing on this occasion. That is something that I think has been lost in this debate. Time and time again, international law has been shown to be not absolute but, on occasion, capable of being overwritten, modified and made mutable by this country, other countries and the European Union.
Generally, we stand by what we sign up to and are as good as our word, so what has changed since last year? I, like many right hon. and hon. Members, have given this some considerable thought. What has changed is the appreciation of the issue of good faith, which ran like a vein through a block of granite throughout all the discussions last year. This works only if the parties act in good faith, and it has become clear over the past several weeks that the European Union side is prepared to regard the Northern Ireland protocol as a lever to get what it wants. It raises the spectre of agrifood being unable to move freely between the nations of the United Kingdom, which is clearly contrary to the Act of Union and drives a coach and horses through the Good Friday agreement. It was not on the table last year, and it calls   into question the “acting in good faith” enjoinder, which I have referred to, and which is clearly contained within the withdrawal agreement and its accompanying political declaration.

Steven Baker: I very much agree with my right hon. Friend, but does he agree with me that it is also contrary to the European Union’s conceding to the UK that Northern Ireland is in the UK’s customs territory? That raises additional considerations that are very material to these clauses. I want to take this opportunity to say that of course I shall therefore support the Government.

Andrew Murrison: I am very pleased to hear that expression of confidence in this good Bill, which is being made better by the amendment tabled by the Government. I agree with my hon. Friend’s point.
I have already gone over my five minutes, Dame Eleanor, but it is important to note the extreme hardball attitude that the EU has recently adopted and what that says about what might be in store for us in the future. The points that the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) made about state aid are extremely germane to this. I remember well, as Northern Ireland Minister and Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the issues relating to Bombardier. It was plain as a pikestaff that this might be used in the event that the UK decided to support Bombardier in GB, because, as things stand, the EU would claim that it is unfair and unlawful because of Bombardier’s presence in Belfast. That is a clear and present danger.
It is also important to get real about what we are up against. I have every respect for the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who quite rightly expounded at length on the fact that the negotiation has to be bounded in good will and said that this will cause difficulty for us in Brussels, but I am clear that this negotiation is no love-in. It is a bare-knuckle affair. Pique is never far away, nor is the desire to make an example of an errant UK pour encourager les autres. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stone said, international law is 40% law and 60% politics, as it is here—this is politics in the raw.
I am sorry that, throughout this whole torrid process, hon. and right hon. Members have shackled the UK Government in our negotiations in Brussels. The British public know that. The hon. Member for Sheffield Central shakes his head, but he should know that more than anybody else, because the British public spoke loud and clear on this issue in December. They understand what we often forget in this place, and they get this business in the way that many of us do not. His party needs to learn that lesson. That is why it suffered so badly in December.
Without amendment 66 or perhaps amendment 4, we would have a problem internally too, because we are up against the judiciary, which has shown itself to be perfectly capable of going head to head with the British Government. By bringing this matter back to the House, it will not be the British Government that the Supreme Court goes head to head with. It will be Parliament itself, and more than that—the people of this country.  Amendment 66 will give certainty on both sides of the English channel. It makes a good Bill better. It assures and insures our national interests, and I wish it well.

Margaret Hodge: I will to try to keep within the five minutes, to give time to others. I never intervene in debates on the European Union, and I do not intervene in debates on Northern Ireland, but I felt I had to intervene today on a debate that concerns the rule of law, because I consider it fundamental to the health of our democracy.
I have been an MP for many years. I have sat here feeling pride, joy, uncertainty and anger as we have considered and debated new laws, but never have I felt the shame that I feel today, when we are being asked by our Government to support a proposition that entails Britain deliberately and intentionally breaking international law. The plea of mitigation from some Members today and from the Prime Minister that this is merely a safety net and an insurance policy; the false assertion from the Law Officers that the ministerial code, under which Ministers swear on oath to comply with the law, applies only to domestic legislation; and the fabricated claim by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that this proposed law
“protects, enhances and strengthens our Union and the prosperity of all our people”—[Official Report, 14 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 127.]
—all those statements are simply plain wrong, and those who made them know that.
We are being asked tonight to support Great Britain breaking the law. The Vienna convention clearly states:
“A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.”
I put it to the Committee that it is the patriotic duty of each and every one of us to vote down this proposal. Great Britain’s global influence, our ability to hold our head up high and even our naked self-interest will all be wrecked by this disastrous proposal to deliberately flout international law. Our post-Brexit ambition to establish our country as global Britain, so that we can be an influential player in world affairs, would be fatally undermined. How could we challenge a corrupt Government or stand up to an aggressive dictatorship? Who would listen when we support the citizens of Hong Kong, challenge the Russians over the Skripal poisoning or defend the Rohingya people in Myanmar if we ourselves flout international law to suit the Prime Minister’s short-term whim?
Today’s FinCEN leaks show that the UK is at the heart of global money laundering and financial crime. How can Britain lead global efforts to combat that if we are not seen as an honest broker or a country that will uphold international agreements? The farce of doing this when it threatens our relationship with the USA, as we see if we read Joe Biden’s tweet or listen to Nancy Pelosi’s comments, beggars belief. To deliberately put this key friendship at risk and deliberately jeopardise a trade deal with the USA is utterly irresponsible and unpatriotic. I say to those on the Government Benches who were brave enough to voice their opposition last week, “Don’t be bought off by a shabby and dishonest compromise. Don’t stand on the head of a pin and be beguiled into thinking that a vote for the amendment means that we’re not actually legislating to break our international legal obligations.”
Once the power to break the law is on the statute book, it is there—no nuances, no ifs or buts, and no kicking the can down the road. Every MP who votes for these clauses will be voting against the rule of law. We are being sucked in as accomplices to the Government’s reckless bid to undermine the rule of law, and that goes for our Law Officers. They should hold their heads in shame at not resigning and speaking out against this irresponsible move. Yet this move is part of a consistent pattern of behaviour: disdain for the judiciary, contempt for us here in Parliament, animosity towards civil servants and loathing of the BBC.
This Government approach their work as if it were a game in which they attack the pillars of our democracy simply to gain a mendacious, populist headline. Their latest target is the rule of law, but it is Britain’s long-term future that is at stake tonight. There is nothing decent, honourable or patriotic about playing roulette with the rule of law. Breaking it will destroy our reputation, integrity, authority and influence on the world stage. I urge every hon. Member of Parliament to vote against this outrageous proposal.

David Warburton: It is a great pleasure to contribute to a debate with such significant implications. I will be brief; I reckon I can be the first person to break precedent and stick within five minutes, because I know an enormous number of colleagues want to speak.
The Bill really is crucial in maintaining the integrity and the smooth operation of the UK’s internal market, and ensuring that they are underpinned by the principle of non-discrimination across the four constituent parts of our Union. I will focus on clause 45 and its constitutional ramifications, because the question that has been engrossing the Committee, and the public, is that of the notwith- standing powers and their potential breach of international law.
Even a potential breach of international law is to be treated with the utmost seriousness, but to suggest, as some have, that the provisions of the Bill place us in some sort of moral equivalence with China or Russia really is risible. Degree and proportion matter. Clause 45, as I hope it will be amended by amendment 66, equips democratically elected Members of this House to decide whether or not to protect the powers outlined in clauses 42 and 43 in the case of need. Should this House decide to, it would mitigate the risk of the UK’s internal market splintering, with all the potential consequences that would flow from that.
There is no equivalence there, and I do not believe that the Bill is symptomatic of some kind of collapse of British support for a rules-based international order. We have heard a lot of this before, but I must say that I do not remember the same level of outrage bursting forth when Germany or France violated treaty obligations on deficit and debt levels, when Canada broke international law to legalise cannabis, or in the Kadi and Barakaat case, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) mentioned, when the European Court of Justice ruled that the EU should ignore the UN charter—the highest source of international law—if it conflicted with the EU’s internal constitutional order. The ECJ then said:
“A treaty can never enjoy primacy over provisions…that form part of the constitutional foundations of the union.”
That cuts to the heart of the issue. When treaty obligations threatened to damage the constitutional coherence of the EU, it felt not only free but obligated to disregard them.
That is not to say, of course, that anyone should contemplate the EU using such powers lightly, but if, and only if, a situation arose where the movement of goods between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK was hampered and access to our internal markets was fettered, not only would it be essential but surely we, too, would be obliged to have powers in place to meet such a contingency. Like the EU, the UK has a Union to protect, and it is absolutely right that it equips itself to do so through the clauses we are currently considering. That is why I cannot support Opposition amendments that seek to de-fang clause 45.
I pay tribute to the hard work of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green), and I am reassured by Government amendment 66 that the exercise of these powers will require parliamentary approval. As I said, even a limited breach of international law is a serious matter and it is right that colleagues from across the House will have the opportunity to exercise their judgment in that respect. Of course, no one wants to see Ministers forced to come to this House seeking approval to use these powers, not least because that would suggest that the attempts of the EU and the UK to agree a trade deal had stalled or failed altogether.
Finally, it is worth restating that of course a trade deal is in the best interests of the EU and the UK, but if all efforts to secure such a deal fail and the EU then acts on its threat to damage the UK, it is essential that we have the necessary tools to protect our national coherence and the economic framework on which that depends.

Alistair Carmichael: I am sure, Dame Rosie, that over the years, you and I have both sat through many debates where it was obvious eventually that everything had been said but that not yet everybody had said it. I fear that we may be into that territory today, but uniquely, I think we got to that point after the first contribution from a Back Bencher. The contribution from the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) was quite one of the most remarkable and clinical deconstructions of the Government’s argument that it was possible to imagine. She spoke with total conviction and clarity, which together were absolutely irresistible. In fact, I think it is worth recording for the benefit of Hansard that no one on the Treasury Bench did resist her. The Minister and the Secretary of State could have intervened and sought to put her right if they thought they were able to do so, but of course they did not. They sat there and squirmed, and it was a joy for many Opposition Members to watch. It took me back to another similar moment in March 2003, when the late Robin Cook delivered his resignation statement from the Government Back Benches. Again, there was the same conviction and clarity delivered at a moment of existential significance and in relation to a matter that will inevitably bring this country into conflict with the rule of law.
It is worth recalling why we have a protocol to the withdrawal agreement in the first place. It is essentially as a result of the Prime Minister’s determination to  remove us from the customs union. The right hon. Member for Maidenhead understood that, and when she sought to negotiate the withdrawal agreement, she came forward with the backstop. It was that backstop that the now Prime Minister resigned over, eventually, and then proceeded to stick pins into the right hon. Lady until she too could stand it no longer. He eventually took her place, at which point he renegotiated the withdrawal agreement with the protocol attached to it. The essence of that renegotiation, of which he has boasted so many times since, was rooted in that backstop.
Tonight was always going to come, because the Government and the Prime Minister have insisted all along that they could do three things when at best they could only ever do two. They told us that they could leave the customs union, that they could avoid the placing of a hard border on the mainland of Ireland, and that they could avoid a border down the Irish sea. Once we come out of the customs union, we can only do one or other; we cannot do them both. And what we have seen tonight is these chickens coming home to roost. Goodness only knows they were warned often enough.
I have always seen this protocol as a threat to the Belfast agreement. The withdrawal agreement with  the protocol attached to it is a political choice made by the Prime Minister to give Brexit and leaving the customs union precedence over the Belfast agreement. This is not some matter of detail; this is a question that goes right to the very heart of the deal that was negotiated by the Prime Minister himself, and we cannot in all seriousness enter into an agreement and then seek to repudiate it because the other party is doing what we have just agreed they are allowed to do.
I turn now to the Government amendment that follows on from the representations made by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill). As a general rule, I am pragmatic—I believe that half a loaf is better than no loaf of bread—but on a matter of this importance I have to say to the House that the deal that the hon. Gentleman has secured is simply not good enough, and it is the raw politics that render it inadequate. Just imagine the conversation in Downing Street between the Prime Minister and the Chief Whip when it comes to that vote. The Prime Minister will ask the Chief Whip, “Can you win it?” Of course, he must be canny in his answer—we both know that—but it has to start, surely, “Well, Prime Minister, with a majority of 80”. That is the political reality. We know, as the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) learned to his cost, that this Government play whipping hard ball when it matters to them, and that is what they will do in the event that this is the only protection that stands between them and getting what they want.
Also, as the right hon. Member for Maidenhead said, it really makes no difference whether it is Ministers in Downing Street or Members in this House who break the law; at the end of the day Britain as a whole—the United Kingdom—will be judged on that action and nobody will care who was ultimately responsible for it.
I remind the House that in 2003 this House had a vote on the question of whether we should go to war  in Iraq, and this House voted to go to war in Iraq,  an action which again had little or no foundation in  international law, and which was ultimately shown to be an unlawful act. Nobody cared that it was an act that had been authorised by this House and not just by Ministers in Downing Street.
This is not an isolated action from this Government; it is part of a course of conduct. As Oscar Wilde might have said had he ever found himself in this unfortunate position, “For a Government to act unlawfully once might be regarded as misfortune; to act unlawfully twice looks like carelessness.”
In fact, come Wednesday, the Government are going to introduce bring a Bill that will effectively decriminalise the use of torture as part of armed conflict in certain circumstances. That is, again, almost certainly a breach of international law, so it is not a question of misfortune or mistake or carelessness; it begins to look like a habit, and it is a habit that any wise Government would be well advised to avoid. On this occasion, it is bad not just for our reputation as a player on the world stage, but it threatens the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom as a unitary state, and the Conservatives and Unionists on the other side of the House should understand exactly what they enter into if they support it in the Lobby tonight.

Shailesh Vara: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). I shall speak to clauses 40 to 45. Let us be clear from the start: the Bill protects and strengthens the United Kingdom, and it safeguards peace in Northern Ireland. There is nothing in it that undermines the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, nor is there any possibility of a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland under any circumstances. From the very outset, the United Kingdom has acted in good faith, and it did so when it signed the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol. Crucially, from the outset, the UK’s understanding of the provisions in the agreement and the protocol were abundantly clear to the EU and all those at the negotiating table. It is clear to the extent that some matters need clarification that we put faith—honest faith—in the Joint Committee reaching reasonable interpretations, being fully aware of our understanding of the issues that needed to be ironed out.
It was not just our understanding of the agreement and protocol on which we relied. The Northern Ireland protocol is clear about some key aspects. Article 1, as well as affirming that nothing in the protocol should interfere with the provisions of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, says:
“This Protocol respects the essential state functions and territorial integrity of the United Kingdom.”
Article 4 provides:
“Northern Ireland is part of the customs territory of the United Kingdom.”
Article 6 goes on to say:
“Nothing in this Protocol shall prevent the United Kingdom from ensuring unfettered market access for goods moving from Northern Ireland to other parts of the United Kingdom's internal market.”
We now find, however, that the EU is suggesting interpretations of the protocol that were never envisaged, notwithstanding the fact that the provisions are clearly set out in the protocol itself, as I have read out. There have been clear suggestions from the EU that its  interpretation of the protocol would lead to the creation of a barrier within the United Kingdom, thus seriously compromising our political and economic integrity. Such action by the European Union threatens the territorial integrity of the UK. It threatens to take Northern Ireland out of the UK customs territory, and it threatens our internal market.
That is unacceptable, and no Government can sit back and allow an international organisation to do that to the very fabric of our country. The Bill is therefore a safeguard that ensures that the UK is not divided and there is no external interference in the running of our country today or in the decades to come. The Bill ensures that we leave the EU as a sovereign independent country, as the people of the UK voted to do.
It is to be hoped that an agreement can be reached with the EU. Indeed, Donald Tusk originally offered a Canada-style agreement, but to the extent that there is  a material breach of good faith by the EU, we have the safety of the Bill, which not only provides for the preservation of our Union but ensures that measures are not followed through without first having obtained the consent of the House.
Finally, let us remember that all Members on these Government Benches stood as candidates at the last general election not only as Conservatives, but as Conservative and Unionist candidates. Every single Member on these Government Benches sits here as a Conservative and Unionist Member of Parliament. To now not agree the passing of this Bill would make a complete mockery of the very platform upon which we stood to get elected to Parliament.

Rosie Winterton: I thank the last few speakers, who have stuck brilliantly to the shorter time limit, but I point out that there are still many colleagues who want to get in. If we can stick to the five minutes, that would be very considerate of others who have sat here for a long time wanting to speak.

Sammy Wilson: I assume that your remarks were addressed to me, Chair, and I will do my best to respond positively. It is a great joy to follow the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), who has been a great friend of Northern Ireland and has taken a principled stand during the previous debates on the Brexit negotiations. He is highly regarded in Northern Ireland for his principled stand, his pro-Unionist views and his willingness to make sacrifices for those pro-Unionist views, too.
We will be supporting the Bill this evening and these particular clauses, but I have to say we have some reservations about the extent and the distance that the Government have gone to try to reverse the damage done by the withdrawal agreement and, in particular, the Northern Ireland protocol. I am pleased that the Government now recognise that, either inadvertently or deliberately, damage is being done to not just Northern Ireland, but the United Kingdom as a whole as a result of the withdrawal agreement, and they are trying to reverse it.
Two arguments have been advanced as to why people should oppose the Bill. The first—it has been an obsession in the House this evening, and outside the House over the past number of days—is that it goes against the Good Friday agreement. Indeed, if one looks at the  amendments tabled by the nationalist Social Democratic and Labour party and the nationalist Alliance party, it is clear that their only concern is the Good Friday agreement, or their interpretation of the Good Friday agreement. All the amendments that my party have tabled address not the alleged ineffectiveness of the protocol in dealing with the Good Friday agreement, but the real problems that will be caused for Unionists, nationalists, the young, the old, businesses and workers in Northern Ireland by the protocol going through in the form that the EU wishes and by it being imposed  in the way the EU wishes.
The protocol will have an effect by putting up costs—that is not my assessment, but the Government’s—reducing opportunities and variety for consumers, impacting on investment and impacting on the trade we do with our biggest market in GB. That is the effect. I will not go through all our amendments, because my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) went through them very succinctly and effectively when he was speaking. All our amendments are designed to undo that economic damage.
Let me just address the issue of the Good Friday agreement. It is significant that when pressed about how the Good Friday agreement is damaged, all we can get from those who make that claim is, “Well, it may not actually go against what is written in the Good Friday agreement, but it goes against the spirit of it”, or to use the words of the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna), “It goes against the implications”—not the wording, and she admitted that—“of the Good Friday agreement”. She could not find a clause in the Good Friday agreement that was breached by the legislation. Instead, it was the intention and the implication of it.
The truth of the matter is, of course, that the Good Friday agreement is offended by the withdrawal agreement, because the withdrawal agreement affects Northern Ireland politically. Laws will now be made in Brussels rather than in Westminster. Northern Ireland will be subject to rule by the EU; we will be part of its single market rules rather than part of the UK single market.
The Union, of course, is not just about where our laws are made. The Union is about the economic benefits of being joined with the four nations. Indeed, article 6 of the Act of Union concentrates on the economic benefits. The benefit of being part of the United Kingdom is that none of the countries within it face tariffs on trade with each other or barriers to trade with each other, and each has the opportunity to share in any economic treaties that the United Kingdom enters into with third countries, yet all those things are breached as a result of the protocol. The Government, in this Bill, seek to acknowledge that those issues come from the withdrawal agreement and to remedy them.
The right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and others, including the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), say, “Oh, but there are ways of dealing with this. You deal with them through the withdrawal agreement and the mechanisms in withdrawal agreement. There’s a Joint Committee and there’s an arbitration panel and so on,  so why not go through those?” The fact of the matter is that we have three months left. There is no certainty in Northern Ireland among businesses. Are they going to have to pay taxes on every good that they bring in on which there is an EU tariff, whether it is consumed in Northern Ireland or not? Which range of goods will be covered by that? We do not know. Is it them all? Is it a very limited list? When we send goods to the other parts of the United Kingdom, will we have to fill in export declarations, with the extra costs and administration? Consumers in Northern Ireland do not know whether, when they buy goods from Amazon and eBay, they will be delivered to Northern Ireland, or whether the burden of bringing goods into Northern Ireland will be such that both those companies will simply say, “It’s not worth our while.”
The whole concept of the internal market has been split by the withdrawal agreement. Some people claim that the Government are trying to tear up the withdrawal agreement, but this is the irony: in my constituency only last week, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was instructing—I do not know how he does this under the devolved rules—civil servants in Northern Ireland to get on with putting up a border post within the United Kingdom, between different parts of the United Kingdom. We are told, “Oh, don’t worry, it’ll be minimal.” Well, £15.5 million-worth of building is hardly about minimal checks. Forty-five thousand square feet of building, in which lorries will be emptied and searched, is hardly about minimal checks. Ministers tell us, “Well, it’s only a precaution.” They must have money to throw away if they are building these buildings only as a precaution and they might never be used.
We need certainty. Let us not forget that these issues have not even been dealt with at the Joint Committee. All we have had are threats: “We’re going to not list the UK. You’ll not be able to bring food in from the UK.” In the absence of negotiations being conducted in good faith, the Government’s first duty is not to adhere to the letter of an agreement that the other side is clearly not honouring and is not even trying to work towards finding some agreement on. The duty of the Government is to the people in our own country—to the people who belong to the United Kingdom and who, under the Act of Union, have been guaranteed no impediments to trade and that their prosperity will not be affected by impositions of taxes and barriers to trade. That is the Government’s first obligation. For those reasons, I believe that the Government are right. I do not think that the tinkering with the withdrawal agreement in this Bill or even the promises that have been made today that other parts will be dealt with in the Finance Bill are sufficient.
I would say to Conservative Members, with many of whom I fought the Brexit fight, that there are many other mines and hand grenades in the withdrawal agreement. The EU will still, through the European Court of Justice, be able to tell us how much we owe in divorce payments and future payments. It will still be able to have jurisdiction and make adjudications if there is a dispute about the rights of EU citizens living in this country. There will still be disputes on its books, and for years into the future it will be able to adjudicate on where that impinges on European Union law. Many other things in the withdrawal agreement are not being addressed in this Bill. That is why the only way of  getting out of the quagmire and getting Brexit really done and delivered is for the Government not just to tinker with the withdrawal agreement: it has to be replaced.

Laurence Robertson: It is a pleasure, as always, to follow the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). He may well have gone over his five minutes, but every word was well worth listening to. I will make sure that I stick to five minutes.
I had the pleasure and honour of chairing the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee for seven years, and our first report was to encourage the Government to explore ways in which corporation tax in Northern Ireland could be reduced to the levels in the Republic so that Northern Ireland businesses could compete on a level playing field. We were told by the European Union that it would be against its rules to do that: it had to be devolved and the Northern Ireland Assembly had to do it, and even then it would be very restricted when it tried to do it. Such taxation, which normally we would claim as our responsibility in this place, comes under the state aid rules. When we talk about bringing powers over state aid back to this Parliament, we are not necessarily talking about bailing out lame ducks. I am showing my age when I mention that phrase; I think it was first used in the early 1970s. We are not even just talking about giving boosts to certain parts of the economy. We are actually, in some cases, talking about the control of taxation. We are all familiar with the phrase, “No taxation without representation.” It is very important, therefore, that the Government stand firm on this issue.
When I was working to prepare the Committee’s report, I said that it was very important to cement the relative peace that had been achieved in Northern Ireland by having a sound economy. Obviously one of the best ways to achieve a sound economy is through trade. It is therefore very important that we do everything we can to protect trade in the United Kingdom, and, as far as I can make out, that is exactly what this Bill is trying to do. It not only connects the four countries of the United Kingdom and paves the way for them to continue to trade with each other very easily; it also makes sure that Northern Ireland can trade, as the right hon. Member for East Antrim said, with its largest trading partner, and that is Great Britain. As I said on Second Reading, north-south trade is very important, but it is not as valuable as east-west trade or west-east trade. That is something we have to be determined to protect.
I do not anticipate the European Union working from a position of bad faith. I am sure that it will continue to do everything it can to protect its businesses by coming to a free trade agreement with the United Kingdom. If we achieve that, none of what we are discussing tonight becomes important. In case it does not act in good faith, however, we need an insurance policy so that we can cement the relative peace in Northern Ireland through prosperity and continue to secure the Union of the United Kingdom.

Katherine Fletcher: I intend to keep my remarks short to aid the House’s consideration of such an important topic. I am a proud child of the north-west of England and I am sure the House agrees that there are strong links between the communities of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland and  those in Manchester, Liverpool, Lancashire and beyond. We travel, live and work on both sides of the short straits of the Irish sea, as my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Antony Higginbotham) said.
It will shock several hon. Members that I am actually really old—old enough to remember the shock of seeing my home town of Manchester shattered by an explosion and the devastation of the Warrington bomb. From the ’90s onwards, I have been proud to have good friends on different sides of the Northern Irish community who studied, lived and worked here and in the north-west, and who are now successful business women trading on both sides of the Irish sea. That is not to forget my next-door neighbour.
Those wonderful women and men told me stories of their childhoods. They were often a difficult and heart-rending listen, but they are important for today’s debate. They were of losing a parent to a car bomb, of having two different ways to say house to avoid the beating that would undoubtedly come if they identified their community by their pronunciation, and of the fear that they would not be able to go home if peace was not secured. To the many hon. Members who have proposed that the Bill poses a threat to the hard-won peace and that the Government would consciously do something to bring about such awful events and bring them back, I say an emphatic no.
As a young woman, I listened to teenage girls crying in a pub about what had happened to them and their families. I promised myself that if I were ever in a position to have influence, “never again” would be my mantra. To keep that promise to my teenage self, I have examined in detail the measures in the Bill and studied the text of the Good Friday agreement, specifically the section on economic, social and cultural issues, which includes:
“the British Government will pursue broad policies for sustained economic growth and stability in Northern Ireland and for promoting social inclusion, including in particular community development and the advancement of women in public life.”
The Bill in no way undermines the Good Friday agreement. On the contrary, it includes provisions to protect the agreement and help to ensure that, regardless of whether further agreement is reached in negotiations with the EU, there will be no hard border between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, and Northern Ireland businesses will continue to benefit from unrestricted access to the rest of the UK market when the transition period ends.
We need the ability to pursue, as it says in the Good Friday agreement, broad policies for sustained economic growth. My reading of the WA requires us to issue specific clarifications encoded in the Bill. The Government are taking reasonable steps to create a safety net that ensures that they are always able to deliver on their commitments to the people of Northern Ireland and uphold the gains of the peace process. To be specific, we cannot have a situation where goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland face restrictions from a third party and where we cannot help to pursue community development due to EU regulations.
I am confident that the Government’s commitment to the Good Friday agreement is beyond question, but I appeal to EU and UK leadership to redouble their efforts in negotiations to reach an agreement and render the safety net not required.
I thank the Government for amendment 66 and for giving the House an ability to have its say should that eventuality even come close to coming to pass.
I will vote with the Government on the Bill today and I will keep my word to those old friends of mine who owned the white Vectra, enjoyed a good DJ set and to whom my drink will always remain a Guinness. They are all powerful businesswomen—I will support them and I will support the Bill.

Dave Doogan: The Bill is objectionable in a very broad sense, and my colleagues and I will not rest in detailing its egregious impositions on Scotland and our people. Like others, I look across the Chamber and I cannot see a single Scottish Tory MP in here. Perhaps they are not worried about how goods will move freely between Scotland and Northern Ireland, but I can assure the House that I and my colleagues are.
As we debate part 5 of the Bill, like many other  hon. and right hon. Members I focus on clauses 42, 43 and 45, which would see comprehensive powers afforded to Ministers to disapply wide-ranging elements of the protocol and the withdrawal agreement, therefore breaching established international obligations and international law. All this would essentially be applicable unilaterally and without the burden of impasse having been established beforehand between the EU and the UK, which also dismisses the obligations to unblock any such disputes through arbitration as set out in article 68 of the withdrawal agreement—another distinct breach of faith.
This calamity is not some unconventional wheeze, such as fantasy extra funding for the NHS as a Brexit dividend, or describing this deal to the exhausted UK public as oven-ready just before an election. This is breaking international law: it is in a different league altogether. If the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) were still in his place, I would say to him that amendment 66 is a slight improvement on where we were a number of days ago, but he has warned the Government that it is not a green light—it is certainly not a red light and it is barely an amber light, because with a majority of 80 the Government will have no difficulty whatever in getting it approved by willing Tory Members.
Clause 42(3)(b) is binary, if not wholly myopic in its abstract assertion that there exists uniquely the need to maintain the integrity and smooth operation of the UK internal market, as though that works in one direction only. Without an agreement, the EU will, of course, have every legitimate claim to protect the completeness and integrity of its single market, so what is the takeaway from that? It is border checks.
The Northern Ireland protocol agreed by this Prime Minister in this Parliament in January this year is now to be rowed back on by this Bill. At one stage, we were told that a border in the Irish sea would be the solution to this, and now it turns out that that is as unlikely as it sounded. Brexiteers championed hollow assurances about technological solutions for the movement of goods, but could not identify a single instance around the world where that existed at scale. We were told this would be achieved with good will on all sides, but I suggest that  good will is a resource that the Government have now thoroughly exhausted. The Government stand ready to sacrifice any country in the UK, to jettison any basic measure of international responsibility and to compromise the UK’s international reputation, such as it is, to their ideological thirst for the purest of all Brexits.
As regards the EU establishing checks on the border, that too would appear to be in contravention of the protocol, which states that the UK and the EU made a guarantee of avoiding a hard border, including any physical infrastructure or related checks and controls. But make no mistake, when a customs infrastructure goes up, it will be the United Kingdom and this Government who will be found to be delinquent and not the EU. The EU is not legislating to renege on the withdrawal agreement, but the UK is. A border between Northern Ireland and the Republic—how can it have come to this, many ask. I do not know how familiar the Minister is with border installations in Northern Ireland, but I recall very well what a menacing scar they were on the Irish countryside. I say that with all due deference to my Northern Irish colleagues, whose lived experience I cannot even hope to comprehend. The irony is not lost on those of us with a closeness to that corner of these islands that the erasing of that border and the securing of peace in the 1990s was a product of real statesmen and women who possessed and deployed political courage, wisdom and foresight. Contrast that with the reckless disregard of this Prime Minister and—let us call them—his associates, who would not be fit to carry the bags of people such as Mo Mowlam, John Hume, David Trimble, Senator George Mitchell and many more. What will the clauses in part 5 of the Bill, so enacted, mean for people in Northern Ireland—in not just the Six Counties but the neighbouring counties in the Republic, with cross-border economies? What hardship and anxiety awaits the people and businesses in counties such as Cavan, Monaghan and Donegal?
The pride of all British nationalists is the alleged strength of the Union but, as we see in the Bill, Northern Ireland is, like Scotland and Wales, important to the British state only when it can further a British ambition or generate a British receipt. The toll that takes on our peoples is merely collateral, and it was ever thus. It is hard to know which is the less competent: signing a treaty that stymies their own Brexit ambitions or trying to defend and protect their precious Union by tearing up the basis of devolution and smashing the principles of subsidiarity asunder with the Bill. The further disintegration of the UK was always going to be a consequence of Brexit and the Bill merely hastens the essential crisis that the UK now faces. Although this is in step with my own ambitions for the UK’s demise, Scottish independence is close at hand with or without the immediate impositions of the Bill, which my colleagues and I will continue to oppose.

Bambos Charalambous: I shall speak against clauses 42 and 45 standing part of the Bill.
When five out of the last six leaders of the Conservative party and all five living Prime Ministers are on the same side of the argument, it is time to sit up and take note. It is not often that I agree with the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), but her remarks earlier in the debate were absolutely right. The Bill’s attempt to enable  the UK to break an international agreement made in good faith is both reckless and damaging. There have been protestations that the measures in the Bill would be used only if an agreement cannot be reached, but their price is the trashing of Britain’s reputation as an honest broker. The Bill will forever allow those regimes that flout international law to counter any criticism and point a finger back at the UK. Is that really a price worth paying? Of course it is not.
How did we get here? The withdrawal agreement clearly made reference to the state aid rules in article 10 of the Northern Ireland protocol. The clue was in the title of the article—it was there in black and white: “State aid”. Did no one notice that section? Did no one read that? If not, the Government are grossly negligent. We have learned that article 10’s impact was made fully known to Ministers at the time. Even if it was not picked up in October, it was certainly referred to in those January days when Parliament debated the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill at length before passing it into law. If state aid was such a big deal, I am surprised that Government Members who were so ebullient in their support of the withdrawal agreement Bill are now so eager to say it was flawed and explain why we must pass this Bill instead. Why did they not kick up a fuss at the time? Where were they?
Many from the Conservative party will say that the measures in the Bill will be invoked only as a last resort, but even passing the Bill and allowing the Government to break international law is doing untold damage to this country’s reputation. The United Kingdom is a signatory to and has ratified the Vienna convention. One of the principles that underpin that convention is negotiating in good faith. Passing this Bill will fly in the face of the Vienna convention and give a green light to other countries wishing to break agreements. With the Government having taken this step, how will anyone ever trust anything that they say in negotiations ever again? Far from making trade deals easier, this legislation has made negotiations much harder, with the United States leading the outcry as it sees renegotiating the Northern Ireland protocol as a gross act of bad faith.
The former Conservative leader Lord Howard was right when he asked how the UK could reproach Russia, China and Iran for their actions when the UK itself was willing to break international law, as he lamented the damage to Britain’s reputation for probity and respect for the rule of law. Perhaps the Bill’s intention is to ensure that we leave the transition period without an agreement. Perhaps it is a negotiation tactic, or perhaps it is designed to be a big distraction. Whichever one of those it may be, saying that the Bill breaks the law
“in a very specific and limited way”—[Official Report, 8 September 2020; Vol. 679, c. 509.]
has diminished Britain’s global reputation.
Just as conspiracy offences carry the same maximum sentence as the original offence itself, even if the powers in the Bill were not used, the fact that the intention was there to do so is proof enough of bad faith. If the Bill passes, even if the power to disapply is not used, irrevocable damage has been done to Britain’s international reputation. Once that reputation is lost it will be very hard to get back.

Edward Leigh: I wish to speak to my amendment 42. I am optimistic that we can reach a deal for the benefit of both the UK and the EU. My amendment outlines a  way whereby in the event that the implementation period ends without a UK agreement we can still provide reassurance on the integrity of our internal market. The statement that EU negotiators made on 10 September, threatening, on the record, that the EU could control the movement of food from Great Britain to Northern Ireland was a regrettable escalation. The reality is that we do not need to accept its interpretation of the protocol. The alternative in the face of unreasonable demands is to state clearly our interpretation of what we agreed to when we signed the protocol.
As I highlighted in the debates last year—I also had numerous meetings with the then Prime Minister and the then Attorney General, and the ideas I promoted were incorporated in the previous Prime Minister’s last suggestion—there is an instrument of diplomacy that can be applied to treaties of this kind and it is called an “interpretative declaration”. Any party to a treaty can use this legal instrument on its own initiative. To emphasise that, we refer to it as a unilateral interpretative declaration. I am sorry to get into detail, but this is terribly important. The law is important and we must uphold the law, which is why I have concerns about the current direction the Government are taking. If the Germans have given the world great music and the French have given it great pictures, we have given the world freedom under the law, under parliamentary democracy, so we must remain within the law.
The point is that there may be a way for the Government to achieve their objective without breaking international law. If the EU were to act on its threat, it would violate our sovereignty—one of the most basic principles of international law. This is what lawyers call an act of bad faith in negotiations. It can also be called a manifestly absurd interpretation of the protocol, and under international law no one is bound by an absurd interpretation of a treaty that is entered into in good faith. If we use a unilateral interpretative declaration to spell out our objections, the EU must respond by either explicitly rejecting or implicitly accepting our interpretation. If it rejects, it must formulate and justify an alternative interpretation. If the EU goes along with a unilateral interpretative declaration made by the UK, it becomes a legally binding joint interpretation. If the EU opposes our interpretation, we have at least strengthened our negotiating position, pushed the EU negotiators on to the back foot and gained a basis for appealing to EU national Governments for new instructions to be given to EU negotiators.
Importantly, an interpretative declaration would hand the EU a way out of the escalation, which is why I am putting this forward as a constructive idea to get us out of the impasse we are in. So much of diplomacy is about saving face, and this would help the EU to do so, while securing an agreement. We would not be reopening or unpicking the protocol; we would just be making a small explanatory statement of our interpretation of what we had signed up to in good faith. Stage three of Brexit starts in January, when we will have established a series of new relationships between the UK, the Republic of Ireland and the EU. There have been deep and bitter rifts over this, first about the backstop and then about the new protocol, but two major improvements have taken place. First, we no longer have the backstop. Secondly, the new arrangement will last only as long as it has the consent of the people of Northern Ireland.  Critics say, “Oh, but Northern Ireland is part of the UK. We will still be linked to the EU.” That is a valid point, but what clear alternatives are they offering?
We have a fundamental logical difficulty here. We have three important goals, and it is difficult to see how they can all be reached compatibly but in full: first, we want to support the Belfast agreement; secondly, we want to leave the customs union; and thirdly, we want a cohesive, sovereign, independent United Kingdom. We cannot reach each of those three goals in full simultaneously without a little bit of give and take, and that is all I am suggesting. We need to invoke the great British spirit of compromise. It may be called muddling through, but it is what we do best.
It is the same in the family of communities that is the United Kingdom and the family of nations in the world. We need to make sacrifices in order to work together. With a little bit of malleability, making some tweaks to the integrity of our internal market, we can preserve the peace in Northern Ireland that has taken so long to achieve. Equally, if we are making some adjustments and sacrifices, the European Union needs to sacrifice its rigid attitudes. That is the compromise I propose, and I hope it is helpful to the debate.

David Linden: This is the first opportunity I have had to speak on the Bill, which I have profound concerns about, so I want to use the early part of my remarks to lay out my clear objections to the Bill. After that, I will seek to address part 5 of the Bill, which is the focus of our line-by-line scrutiny tonight.
Like many colleagues from Scotland, I have grave concerns that the Bill is not only a slap in the face to the rule of international law but undermines the very foundations of the devolution settlements, which are so precious to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That should not surprise the people of Scotland, who witnessed the Tories campaign vehemently against devolution in the 1997 referendum. The truth is that the Conservatives and this Prime Minister in particular have never respected the devolution arrangements. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) reminded the House last week, it was a former Daily Telegraph writer who wrote a tirade against devolution, saying:
“Devolution is causing all the strains that its opponents predicted, and in allowing the Scots to make their own laws, while free-riding on English taxpayers, it is simply unjust.”
That former Daily Telegraph writer was, of course, the current First Lord of the Treasury, the Prime Minister.
From the outset, I absolutely reject the Bill and will vote against it at every opportunity until it is foisted on to the statute books by a Tory Government that people in my country never voted for. But let us be crystal clear about the draft legislation before us and the consequences of it receiving Royal Assent. For a start, the Bill would undoubtedly lead to a race to the bottom on food and environmental standards. Indeed, it creates more, not less, uncertainty for businesses and makes the case that the only way to truly defend the Scottish Parliament is with the normal powers of independence.
I am long enough in the tooth to know that Committee of the whole House means that my remarks have to be focused on the specific clauses at hand, so I will not test your patience much longer, Dame Rosie, and will seek to focus on part 5 of the Bill. Indeed, I will make specific and limited references to clauses 40 to 45, but in doing so, I wish to indicate my support for amendments 27, 31 to 40, 44, 80, 88 and 89, in the name of my hon. Friends on the SNP Benches, and I will also support new clauses 5 and 6 if they are put to a Division.
I want to first deal with the issue of breaching international law, which has been the source of much debate this evening and in recent weeks. Since this is the first time that I have participated in proceedings on the Bill, I have had the opportunity to watch all of this play out, particularly on Second Reading last week, and I am still not quite sure what to make of it, if I am truly honest.
Part of me still finds it jaw-dropping and astonishing that the Conservative party—once the party of law and order—is now openly flouting international law. But then I realise that we have been here before, because this is a Government and a Prime Minister who do not respect or uphold the law. It is a timely reminder of the events this time last year, when my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) forced the Government into the Supreme Court, which found their actions to prorogue Parliament “unlawful”, so should we be surprised at this Government putting two fingers up to the judiciary? Ministers need to think again, not just because it is morally wrong to break the law, but because it is also a clear breach of the ministerial code. David Anderson QC was bang on the money when he said:
“The Ministerial Code still mandates compliance with international law, despite a change to its wording, as the Court of Appeal confirmed in 2018”.
However, the controversy surrounding the clauses before us tonight is not just about upholding the rule of law, which is surely the most basic thing we would expect from a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Pushing ahead with this madness will have an impact for post-Brexit Britain on the world stage. What does it say about a post-Brexit global Britain that its first act as an independent state is to tear up the rules-based order? I would argue that it sends a clear signal that Britain under Boris is giving two fingers up to not just international law but peace on the island of Ireland, and that is what worries me most about all this. Tory Ministers and Back Benchers appear, once again, to be playing fast and loose with Northern Ireland, with little understanding of the consequences for the fragile communities over there, or indeed for the knock-on effect on trade.
We know that pressing ahead with this reckless act is a sure-fire way of torpedoing any chance of a trade deal with the United States. How do we know that? Because the Americans have said so already. Take Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of Congress, who said:
“The U.K. must respect the Northern Ireland Protocol as signed with the EU to ensure the free flow of goods across the border. If the U.K. violates that international treaty and Brexit undermines the Good Friday accord, there will be absolutely no chance of a U.S.-U.K. trade agreement passing the Congress.”
Most of us know that playing fast and loose with the Northern Ireland protocol, as the Bill proposes, will  not end well, but imagine my surprise when I saw some tweets from the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) suggesting:
“Trade deals are nice to have but not essential. We didn’t have a trade deal with the USA when in the EU. Getting back full control of our laws, our money and our borders is essential.”
I am a bit confused, because one caucus of the Tory party, headed up by the International Trade Secretary, says that Brexit is all about new opportunities for trade, and Brextremists such as the right hon. Gentleman say that trade deals are nice but not essential—all the while the Government are playing fast and loose with peace on the island of Ireland.
The fact is that the Bill, and specifically the three clauses before us, are a clear advert for what Brexit Britain looks like: playing peace with Northern Ireland; riding roughshod over devolution; a race to the bottom on food and environmental standards; and two fingers up to upholding the rule of law. People in Scotland can see that it is an advert for post-Brexit Britain, and do not be surprised if they trade it in for independence  and take back control the next time Scotland has the opportunity.

Damian Green: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Gentleman. It is a sign of how fast moving these debates are that when I put into speak this evening I intended to support amendment 4 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), but before I got the chance to speak he had already indicated his intention of withdrawing it. He is doing so for the best of reasons. It was an excellent amendment, and I am glad that the Government have said that they agree with the thrust of it, so we can discuss a different set of points.
I know that many of my friends and colleagues abstained or voted against the Bill on Second Reading because of their doubts about part 5. I voted in favour because I think that the other 50 clauses are excellent and essential. The UK internal market is key to the future prosperity of people in all four countries of the United Kingdom, and the principles of market recognition and non-discrimination are at the heart of the future prosperity of our citizens in all parts of the UK.
However, I shared the doubts that many had about clauses 42, 43 and 45—the essential parts of part 5 of the Bill—and I was quite shocked to hear a Secretary of State say that the UK Government were planning to break the law, even in a specific and limited way. I had not ever expected to hear any Secretary of State say that, particularly not a Conservative one, so I am genuinely delighted that the Government have taken over my hon. Friend’s amendment. I think that is a wise and pragmatic thing for the Government to have done, and I am glad to have played my part in the talks that led to it.
It is important that the House recognise that this is more than just kicking the can down the road, if I can revive one of the great clichés of 2018 political debate. The Government amendment needs to be put in context with the public statement that the Government have made on gov.uk and, indeed, some of the words that the Minister uttered in opening this debate, when he made it clear that Parliament will be asked to support the use of the provisions in the clauses, and any similar subsequent provisions, only in the case of the EU being engaged in a material breach of its duties of good faith and, in the Government’s view, thereby undermining the fundamental purpose of the Northern Ireland protocol, and giving examples of what that would involve.
It seems to me that, despite the various attacks on the Bill that we have heard, the case is now straightforward. If the Government can convince the House that those on the other side in the negotiations have broken the rules, they can proceed. At that point, the Government have said, the dispute resolution procedures in the withdrawal agreement will come into force, which I think is another sign of legal action. But the key point is that the Government will have to make the case to this House that the EU has broken the agreement, not the UK. I am absolutely sure that that proposition will provoke a lively debate in this House, and indeed across the channel, but in the light of that debate we will then decide and we will make the law. If the Government cannot make the case that they are behaving properly, proportionately and legally, they will not convince the House. It seems to me that that is how law making should happen in this parliamentary democracy.
This is where I part company with my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who made a passionate and powerful speech. She said that there was no difference between the Executive acting and Parliament acting, but I do not think that is true. I think that there is much greater force in action taken knowingly by the House of Commons, particularly in this context, when it is considering whether the Government are acting lawfully. Putting that power in the hands of the House of Commons is democratically proper and therefore legally proper.
The Northern Ireland clauses of the Bill have not had an easy passage, for good and serious reasons, but we are now in a much better place with them than we were a week ago, and I am now happy to support the Government on this and on the Bill more generally.

Stephen Doughty: It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Dame Rosie. During the passage of the Bill, I have spoken extensively on the attacks on devolution, on the specific consequences for Northern Ireland and the Good Friday agreement, and indeed on the failure of the Prime Minister to deliver on his oven-ready Brexit deal.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) for his speech, but I also wish to pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), the former Prime Minister, for her comments. I have disagreed with her courteously on many issues over the years, but she is a person of principle, public service and integrity. I am afraid that I cannot say the same about some of the others, including our current Prime Minister, our rubber stamp of an Attorney General or our now-compliant Lord Chancellor, who once stood up for the rule of law during his time in practice in south Wales, but who now seems willing, in his own words, to “fudge it”. Indeed, there are the contradictions of our Foreign Secretary, who one minute is rightly arguing for international law and human rights, such as the Magnitsky sanctions and everything that goes with them, but the next minute is undermining them.
I am afraid that the damage that the Government’s statements have done to our reputation is incalculable. The right hon. Member for Maidenhead, who is no longer in her place, said
“frankly, my view is that to the outside world, it makes no difference whether a decision to break international law is taken by a Minister or by this Parliament; it is still a decision to break international law. This can only weaken the UK in the eyes of the world… It will lead to untold damage to the United Kingdom’s reputation.”
I agree with every word.
We have heard many powerful speeches, from Members across the House, expressing deep concern about where the Bill is taking us. I urge those who have stood up with principle and questioned the Government and put forward amendments to think again. The Prime Minister has repeatedly broken his word: he has broken it to the Taoiseach; he has broken it to our negotiating partners in the European Union; and he has broken it to Members on his own side repeatedly. Do not trust him.
A number of arguments have been made that suggest there are some sort of special exemptions in the Vienna convention and various international treaties. That is simply not the case. The House of Commons Library—neutral, respected and authoritative—has been very clear, saying that this is a far-reaching power to effectively allow the violation of
“any international obligation that may be engaged in the creation of regulations under clauses 42 and 43.”
It notes that this is not limited specifically to a violation of the Northern Ireland protocol but to
“all international obligations that may have legal implications in this context.”
It also makes it clear that, under the Vienna convention,
‘“A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.’ This means that this Bill cannot change the legally binding nature, in international law, of the UK’s international obligations.”
It also makes it crystal clear that
“parliamentary sovereignty does not change the binding nature of the UK’s international obligations.”
It is there in black and white.
Over the past six months, I have spoken to countless senior diplomatic and military figures who are appalled at the decline of our reputation, our international standing and the influence of our soft power—of global Britain itself. They are appalled at the arrogance of a Government who think they can simply impose their will, rather than negotiate and act in the global, international sphere in good faith with British dignity and the principle of fair play. We have seen that in recent days, with the resounding rebuff to the Foreign Secretary on every level from both sides of the United States Congress regarding this Bill. It was knocked down by Members of the House of Representatives and the Senate, and, of course, presidential candidate Biden.
Beyond that, it is worth looking at the wider reputational damage that we are doing. The UK failed to get one of its own elected to the International Court of Justice for the first time since world war two. We are losing votes heavily and routinely in key United Nations forums. We lost the election for the director-general of the World Health Organisation. I am afraid to say that the candidacy of the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) is widely seen as a joke in international circles at the  World Trade Organisation in Geneva. Ambassadors attend receptions out of embarrassment, and support is generated from few other than the right-wing, authoritarian and homophobic Government of President Orbán of Hungary.
The UK currently does not have a single national on any of the United Nations human rights treaty bodies—zero. That is unprecedented in a place where once we were represented and influential. Just last week, we were publicly challenged and, in my view, humiliated, at the pledging event for candidates for the UN Human Rights Council. Comments made included:
“As a prospective member of the Human Rights Council, one crucial part of the role is to address violations of international human rights law.”
Recent comments by the UK Government “compromise this role”.
We are putting our decent diplomats in hugely difficult, embarrassing positions, but crucially ones that are not influential and do not have a role for global Britain. We do not have a role in the other organisations. That is why there has been so much criticism of the Government’s work, including by Amal Clooney—until recently the UK Government’s special envoy on global media freedom and a distinguished human rights barrister at Doughty Street Chambers—who said that
“I have always been proud of the UK’s reputation as a champion of the international legal order, and of the culture of fair play…However…it has now become untenable for me…to urge other states to respect and enforce international obligations while the UK declares that it does not intend to do so itself…It threatens to embolden autocratic regimes that violate international law with devastating consequences all over the world.”
When we make arguments about the Sino-British treaty over Hong Kong or the territorial integrity of Ukraine, when we say that those who have committed crimes against humanity and genocide should be brought to justice, when we make arguments for a world trade system—a legally binding international financial and trading system—about the Paris climate change agreement, or, in our own specific national interests, on Gibraltar, the Falklands and maritime claims, we are undermining our place on the world stage. That is what the Government have done and are continuing to do. I urge all those across the House of principle and conscience who believe in global Britain—we might have disagreements over other things—and believe that this is a country of fair play and decency, which keeps its word and can be respected and influential, not to support these clauses and to speak out against this Bill.

Bernard Jenkin: I am grateful to have caught your eye, Dame Rosie, so that I can respond to some of the comments that the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) was just making. I respect that he feels passionately about these matters, but to equate these clauses with genocide or the annexation of territory against the will of a sovereign state is absolutely ridiculous. It completely misunderstands the degree of doubt that exists about what international law means when interpreting international agreements.

Damian Green: My hon. Friend is ascribing the things he most disagrees with to me—[Interruption.] No, he did say “my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford”. I am sure that the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) would wish to take ownership of his own ideas.

Bernard Jenkin: I apologise to my right hon. Friend. His name was in my mind because it was on the monitor before the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth spoke.
It is important to see these clauses in the wider context. My heart sank when I picked up the first draft of the agreement, because this was not the departure from the European Union that I had expected to see expressed in the text of the agreement; it was the same oppressive, impenetrable text with endless references to the treaties as they exist. The withdrawal agreement was clearly a concerted attempt by the European Union to continue its influence, even through the direct applicability and direct effect of European Union law on the United Kingdom.

Kirsten Oswald: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Bernard Jenkin: No, I am not going to give way. I am going to be very brief.
The important perspective is to ask ourselves how this debate is going to be regarded in 10, 20 or 30 years’ time. These controversies will be seen as the growing pains of the re-establishment of our national sovereign independence as a national democracy. I dare say that none of us has studied the debates on the Great Reform Act of 1832, but I bet they went through exactly the same kind of painful introspection that we have seen in the Chamber this evening. Today we look upon the 1832 Reform Act as a great stride towards the democratisation of our constitution, and history will look back at these debates in the same way and see this moment in our history as the time that we decided to take back control of our own constitutional arrangements and our own national democracy.
I would go further than that. There is no doubt that this Bill will get through this House intact, but some people are suggesting that there will be more of a problem in the other place. There will be those who continue to resist the consequences of leaving the European Union and the consequences of having signed a highly unsatisfactory agreement that attempts to sustain the influence of the European Union far beyond any legitimate role it has in making the laws of our country. That is what we are talking about, in relieving ourselves of these clauses. However, I can assure the House that, in the long run, nothing is going to stand in the way of  the British people re-establishing and reclaiming our independence, and if the other place chooses to stand in our way in that respect, I suspect that in the longer term this House, as the democratic House, will prevail.

Brendan O'Hara: There is so much wrong with this Bill that it is difficult to know where to start, but in the time I have available, I will concentrate my remarks on clauses 40 to 45. Those are the clauses that allow this Government to break international law and renege on the legally binding agreement that they themselves negotiated and signed up to less than a year ago—a fact that, try as they might, they can never escape from. I will also speak to amendment 41, which deals with preserving the integrity of the Good Friday agreement, on the basis of which peace has been secured in the north of Ireland for more than two decades and which seeks to defend international law from a Government who believe that somehow, uniquely and exceptionally, it does not apply to them.
On 16 June, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster stood at the Dispatch Box and said that the Government were “faithfully implementing” the withdrawal agreement, including the Northern Ireland protocol. Just 83 days later, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland stood at the same Dispatch Box and said that, yes, the Bill did break international law. This unprecedented political handbrake turn left everyone from a former Prime Minister to the United States Congress scarcely able to comprehend what they were hearing—namely, that the United Kingdom was prepared to go rogue if it did not get its own way, and to ditch its own Northern Ireland protocol. It is a remarkable, not to say ludicrous, position for a Government to find themselves in and one that suggests that this is a Government who have scant regard for the law and a particularly cavalier attitude to the Northern Ireland peace process, displaying as they do very little knowledge, understanding or care as to the consequences of their actions.
I know that we live in strange times, but who would ever have thought that we would be debating whether a UK Conservative Government could knowingly break international law and that this House, led by the self-styled champions of law and order on the Conservative Benches, would be about to say that, yes, it could? Let them be in no doubt that, in doing so, they are signalling to the international community that the United Kingdom is a bad faith actor, an untrustworthy partner whose adherence to international law is based solely on expediency. They might want to ask themselves why—why would any Government find the UK an attractive partner with which to enter a legally binding trade deal in the future?
This is a United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, but it has already attracted international attention, and none of it has been good. Even the USA, on which much of the bright post-Brexit future has been predicated, has said that anything that undermines the Good Friday agreement will have dire consequences for the UK, and that there will be no trade deal forthcoming. Did any Conservative Member think that that would not be the case? Is anyone in this House unaware of the political investment that the United States has in brokering peace in Northern Ireland? Did anyone think that, having worked so hard to secure a peace deal, the United States would just watch it crumble into dust when it proved to be an inconvenience to the UK Government? I tell you what, Madam Deputy Speaker, if they did think that then, they certainly do not think it now, because the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, declared that this UK Government must respect the Northern Ireland protocol and that, if they violate it, there will be no chance of a US-UK trade deal. That position was backed up by presidential favourite Joe Biden, who said that any deal between the UK and the United States is contingent upon respect for the Good Friday agreement. The world is telling the UK: do not breach international law, do not become that rogue state, because there will be consequences if you do.
This Bill confirms what many of us have suspected for a long time: there is no long-term or strategic thinking at the heart of this Government. Everything they do is based on expediency and is designed simply to get them off whatever immediate and inconvenient hoop they happen to be caught on. That such behaviour inevitably leads to far bigger and more complex problems  further down the line seems to matter little. They are like an errant child trying to avoid facing up to their responsibilities and are prepared to say or do anything to kick that further down the road and avoid the reckoning. They have run out of road and been reduced to using the Good Friday agreement as a bargaining chip, and are on the brink of becoming an international law breaker. This Bill in its current form will see the United Kingdom cross the Rubicon. It has embarked on a course from which it cannot come back. The mask has slipped and any remaining shred of moral authority that the United Kingdom may have thought it had will have slipped with it. The consequence of this Government’s action is coming to a head, and it is a disaster entirely of their own making.

Jeremy Wright: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara). My reservations about clauses 42, 43 and 45 of the Bill were expressed, I hope clearly, on Second Reading, so I do not need to repeat them. Those of us who have reservations and understandable concerns about the effect on the rule of law of what the Government are proposing need, I think, to answer one question, which is whether there are any conceivable circumstances in which international law could properly be broken by this country. I cannot come to the conclusion that there are no conceivable circumstances in which that might be the right course of action. If there were to be a fundamental threat to the social or economic fabric of this country and breaking the international law was the lesser evil, I can accept that that might be the right thing for this country to do it, but if we were to contemplate such a course of action three things would need to be true.
The first thing would be that there was specific authority to break international law, not general latitude. It seems to me that we have made progress on that. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) and others on negotiating with the Government in the way that they have. I am delighted to see amendment 66 brought forward in the Government’s name as a consequence; and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) said a moment or so ago, it is perfectly right that the House of Commons should have the opportunity to give its specific view on the specific circumstances that may obtain at that point.
The second thing that I think would be required is that the circumstances were wholly exceptional. On that, again, we have made some progress. The statement the Government produced on 17 September, which has been referred to already in this debate, sets out some examples of the type of behaviour on the part of the European Union that would trigger those wholly exceptional circumstances in the Government’s view. They almost all relate to a breach of faith by the European Union, and I would concede that they are, in that list, indeed wholly exceptional. It is therefore helpful to see that list.
There is in my view, however, a third requirement on top of the requirement for a specific sanction and in addition to exceptional circumstances, and that is that there is no alternative to breaking international law. On this, we do need absolute clarity. Again, the Government’s  statement on 17 September is helpful up to a point, but it does in my view present a problem. Where one of the unacceptable scenarios the Government have described occurs, that statement says that the Government would activate the appropriate formal dispute settlement mechanisms
“in parallel with the use of the provisions”
in these clauses.
I am afraid it is the use of the phrase “in parallel with” that causes me concern.
I am not convinced that the world “in parallel with” are consistent with the last resort that breaking international law surely must be. It must be the case, must it not, that the United Kingdom will do all within its power within the provisions of the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol before stepping outside  it. Given the reputational damage that a breach of international law would undoubtedly do, that would only be right. To be fair to the Minister, I thought I heard him say at the beginning of this debate that in that scenario the Government would use measures within the agreement before using measures in the Bill. Again, that must be the right approach. But that needs to be reconciled, I am afraid, with the phrase “in parallel with” in the Government’s statement on 17 September.
This matters, not because I believe that the Government should be obliged to follow through on an arbitration procedure beyond the last moment at which the Government would be able to take unilateral action in the face of one of these very severe threats that we are discussing, but because there needs to be absolutely clarity that a breach of international law would be a matter of necessity, not a matter of preference, and that everything possible would be done to keep within international law, within the agreements we have negotiated, before we feel the need, if we ever do, to step outside it. I am afraid that the Government still need to provide me, and I am sure other Members of this House, with greater clarity on that very important point.

Bill Esterson: I thoroughly enjoyed the very thoughtful and well analysed speech from the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright). I hope his hon. Friends will listen very carefully to what he says, which is incredibly important.
There are things I did not expect to be doing today. The first is to be quoting the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who spoke of the untold damage to the UK’s reputation of implementing these clauses which will break international law as soon as they hit the statute book. Something else I did not expect to be doing today, or ever, is quoting Margaret Thatcher. In 1975—before your time, Dame Eleanor—she said:
“Britain does not renounce Treaties. Indeed, to do so would damage our own integrity as well as international relations.”
In 1982, Mrs Thatcher said of Britain’s role:
“It is in upholding international law and teaching the nations of the world how to live”.
That last bit did not always go down so well, but, Dame Eleanor, you take the point. Mrs Thatcher believed, as the right hon. Member for Maidenhead believes, in the rule of law and in the importance of upholding international law at all cost.
That is without citing Lord Howard, Lord Hague or Lord Lamont, and I mention them along with the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox), as former Members of this House, in three cases, who are held in high regard, or used to be held in high regard, by members of Conservative party. Then we move on to the Confederation of British Industry: Carolyn Fairbairn spoke of the damage to our reputation and integrity. The Federation of Small Businesses in Northern Ireland made a plea to the Government for sensible implementation of the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol, but its pleas have fallen, so far, on deaf ears.
As we heard earlier, the damage was done when the Northern Ireland Secretary told the House, as he did last week or the week before now—time passes so fast—that the Government intended to break international law, albeit in a “specific and limited way”. The Vienna convention is clear: it is not possible to use domestic law as an excuse for breaking international law. Article 5 of the withdrawal agreement makes it clear that it is not possible to do so, and Conservative Members all signed up to it at a general election and in here when they voted for it. They used to say that they revered those elders of their party—many of them would still say they do with Margaret Thatcher, of course—so how did it come to this?

Stephen Doughty: My hon. Friend is making some incredibly powerful points. He is undoubtedly aware that today the world is celebrating the 75th anniversary of the United Nations. Does he find it curious that the UK Government have signed up to a statement that says:
“We will abide by international law… We will abide by the international agreements we have entered into and the commitments we have made”?
Is there not some stark hypocrisy going on there?

Bill Esterson: Hypocrisy, and nobody will believe it. No one will believe it because of their own words and, increasingly, their own actions. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that example.
What is this for—customs clearances, and because of a border in the Irish sea that the Government voted for? Have they raised it with the Joint Committee, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) asked for the umpteenth time earlier? We would love to know in the wind-up. What of the dispute resolution system and the binding arbitration they have agreed to? Why is it no longer enough? Is this really about state aid, and the Damascene conversion of a Conservative party that last year only spent 0.38% of GDP on subsidies, while in Germany the figure was 1.38% and in Portugal as much as 1.69%? Tell us  what this wonderful new world of support for our industries that the Government are proposing is, so we can scrutinise it.
The Government are not very good at scrutiny, are they? We found that out on the Trade Bill, and we continue to do so. They deny any opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny, and it is the same here with these customs clearances and state aid. When it comes to state aid, we are now being told, although we cannot see the detail, that the Japanese deal will have a different state aid regime from the one they are proposing. Is it  the one proposed by the Business Secretary or the one that the International Trade Secretary would prefer, with renegotiation of World Trade Organisation state aid rules? Tell us, so that we can scrutinise and make informed decisions before we vote on the provisions in this Bill.
I mention trade deals, and we know from numerous Members tonight and previously what the Speaker of the House of Representatives has said and what the former Vice-President and, I hope, future President, has said about the prospect for those trade deals, given this break of the Northern Ireland agreement and threat to the peace process. What is causing so much disquiet about what Conservative Members signed and voted for last year? Why are they ignoring the senior people in their party and Margaret Thatcher? Why the Damascene conversion to state aid? Broken promises, breaking the peace process and breaking the rule of law and international law—and they know it.

David Jones: I am pleased to speak in support of the Bill, specifically part 5, subject to Government amendment 66. Part 5 proved controversial, even before we began proceedings this afternoon. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Minister arrived in the Chamber fully expecting that he would have to defend the Government against accusations of being in breach of their obligations under the withdrawal agreement, and he has not been disappointed.
What has been frequently overlooked in today’s debate is the fact that obligations under the withdrawal agreement move in two directions. There are obligations on both sides. Specifically, the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration impose obligations on both the European Union and the United Kingdom to use their best endeavours in good faith to negotiate expeditiously the free trade agreement that will constitute their future relationship.
The political declaration provides that that relationship must ensure the sovereignty of the United Kingdom and the protection of its internal market. The sad fact is that negotiations have not proceeded expeditiously, and it is more than arguable that the European Union has not used its best endeavours nor acted in good faith. The EU, in fact, has refused to talk about anything other than its so-called red lines of fisheries, the level playing field and state aid. Time is rapidly passing, yet the EU refuses to talk about anything else. If, as a consequence of its intransigence and refusal to discuss things other than its red lines, we arrive at the point where the negotiations fail and there is no free trade agreement, there will be potentially severe, adverse consequences for the integrity of the United Kingdom’s internal market. Hardest hit will be Northern Ireland. To take one example, although the protocol says in terms that Northern Ireland is part of the customs territory of the United Kingdom, the protocol says that it is part of the EU’s customs territory, and potentially the consequences are that goods passing from Northern Ireland to Great Britain will be subject to what the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) described as bureaucratic and administrative borders.
That is despite the fact that article 6 of the protocol provides that nothing should prevent the United Kingdom from ensuring unfettered market access for goods  moving from Northern Ireland to other parts of the  UK’s internal market. Part 5 of the Bill therefore sets up a safeguard against such consequences, should there be no satisfactory conclusion to the negotiations on the future relationship.
The impact on the Belfast/Good Friday agreement is deeply worrying. The right for the people of Great Britain and Ireland to trade freely was enshrined in article 6 of the Acts of Union 1800. Those provisions still apply to Northern Ireland—they are rights set up under a constitutional statute. If the right of the people of Northern Ireland to trade freely with the rest of the UK were to be changed without their consent, it would amount to a major breach of the core principle of the Belfast agreement.
None of the provisions of the Bill will take effect until such time as the Secretary of State makes regulations that they should. Government amendment 66 provides that no such regulations may be made until such time as they have been authorised by a vote of this House, and the Government have made it clear that they will not call a vote unless the EU is seen to be in material breach of its duty of good faith or other obligations. That, I believe, should give additional comfort to hon. Members who have been concerned about the impact of such regulations, but, to repeat, these provisions simply amount to a safeguard against the potential consequences of there being no concluded agreement on the future relationship, and they are legitimised by section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020. The best way to avoid their use is for the EU to perform its obligations under the withdrawal agreement and negotiate with the UK to secure a free trade agreement.
I believe that the Government are acting prudently in the national interest in creating this safeguard against the continued breach by the European Union of its obligations under the withdrawal agreement, and I therefore support part 5 of the Bill.

Ruth Jones: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship tonight, Dame Eleanor.
Let me start by being crystal clear that Opposition Members firmly believe in the need for a strong internal market so that businesses can trade freely across the UK’s four nations. That trade is vital for our economy and our shared prosperity, but, as we have heard in recent days as the House debates this Bill in Committee, it must be an internal market based on a genuinely four-nation approach; it must not be a top-down framework imposed by Tory Ministers.
By proposing mutual recognition without legally underpinning minimum standards, Ministers are ensuring that the lowest standard on food, the environment, air quality and animal welfare that is chosen by one legislative House must automatically become the minimum standard across all four nations. As Member of Parliament for Newport West, I have received many lengthy and passionate representations from residents across my constituency. It is clear that they want the highest possible standards, protected by our progressive Welsh Labour Government, a demand that stands in stark contrast to the shameless race to the bottom proposed by those on the Treasury Bench.
There are a number of important amendments to this Bill, and I pay tribute to those tabled by my Front Bench and others across the House. The Minister needs to be clear in winding up that amending this Bill and stopping the shameless power grab will be a key focus of this Government.
As today’s debate focuses largely on Northern Ireland, I urge the Minister to be mindful of the fragile peace holding that part of the country together. Last week, the hon. Members for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) and for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) spoke movingly about what peace has meant for Northern Ireland. Their words must be heard loud and clear by Ministers.
When thinking about the Northern Ireland protocol I was reminded of the wonderful work of our friend Lady Hermon, the former Member for North Down. In September 2019 she said in this Chamber:
“I think the Prime Minister owes the people of Northern Ireland some explanation of why he and his Government have treated the Good Friday agreement…in such a careless and cavalier manner.”—[Official Report, 3 September 2019; Vol. 664, c. 46.]
She was right then, and, sadly, she is still right today.
I do not always agree with the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), but I want to thank her for her brave speech today, as she focused on the issues the Bill throws up and how it will affect our standing in the rest of the world.
The current Prime Minister has called himself the Minister for the Union; I have to say that these days he looks like the Minister for disarray, and frequently appears to be missing in action. A Government who were truly committed to the Union of the United Kingdom would not propose this divisive legislation. They would respect the devolved Administrations and the people who live, learn and work in our devolved nations, and propose legislation with the informed consent of the devolved Parliaments and Assemblies.
The Tory shadow Counsel General in Wales said this Bill risks seriously damaging the Union and resigned from the Front Bench in the Senedd, and he was right to do so. If the Prime Minister will not take the same dignified and objective stand as David Melding MS and resign, he must immediately stop trashing our international reputation, and must use however long he has left in office to start providing the good government my constituents deserve.

Tim Loughton: It is always a joy to come in on the fag end of a debate, when so many people have said everything that needs to be said and we have had a surfeit of lawyers on what is a very legalistic Bill—I am not one, thank goodness.
There is much good in this Bill. It is about the continuity of trade and the integrity of the United Kingdom, the principle of mutual recognition and the principle of non-discrimination of goods within the UK, and there is much practical stuff that, in the absence of an early agreement with the EU, we need to do. However, I have serious reservations about the inclusion of clauses 41 to 45 because of the implications well beyond this Bill, or indeed, well beyond our withdrawal process from the EU. They raise serious question marks about the intent and good name of the United Kingdom in being party to other international agreements.
When a Government Minister at the Dispatch Box states that the UK will be able to break the law, albeit in a “specific and limited way”, parliamentarians should prick up their ears and ask why and how, and demand proper justification from the Government and the Ministers to whom this part of the Bill gives considerable and ongoing powers. When the Government published this Bill in a hurry, that justification, I feel, was just not forthcoming from the Government, and on Second Reading, I therefore could not support the Bill. I would like to support the Government. I would like to support the Bill, but I need more assurances.
Amendment 4, which was put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) and which forced the hand of the Government with Government amendment 66, certainly helps, although it just gives an additional check without removing the powers reserved to the Government fundamentally. I say this as a concerned Brexiteer, but this is not a question of leave or remain. It has no impact on the UK leaving the EU fully after the end of the transition period on 31 December, but it does have an impact, potentially, on how we carry on our business in the world beyond the EU after 31 December.
I think the EU has behaved disgracefully throughout the negotiation period. It has exploited shamelessly the unique position of Northern Ireland as our land border with the EU but subordinate to the very important status conferred on it by the Good Friday agreement. It has used all sorts of underhand tactics to promote its pet causes, to keep the UK under the control of EU laws and regulations, be that British fisheries or state aid considerations and preventing us from being able to compete fairly, which is all we ask. “Unless you give us what we want, we will impose checks and tariffs between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and there is nothing you can do to stop it”—runs the subtext of the negotiations.
It has now become clear that the EU is trying to reinterpret the terms of the withdrawal agreement to impose control over internal markets within the UK that no other country would tolerate and none has been required to agree to as part of any other EU trade deal. Of course, as we heard from many hon. Members, the EU is no stranger to breaking international agreements when that suits it, especially as regards the WTO. Has the EU really been negotiating an agreement in good faith, especially when a precedent has already been set of what was possible with a Canada-type deal?
Despite all this, it does not, and should not, mean that we, the United Kingdom, have to follow suit and act badly as well. The United Kingdom has a reputation for upholding the rule of law. The Conservative party has always had as one of its most cherished doctrines the importance of upholding the rule of law, so I share, for once, the concern of many lawyers who are worried that these clauses represent a significant risk of violation of the UK’s international law obligations, including the principle of good faith and sincere co-operation; that the Northern Ireland protocol and associated case law would have a subordinate role dependent on ministerial interpretation; and that this would have potentially a serious impact on the reputation of the UK as a centre for international legal practice and dispute resolution. This would not go down well, given the professed ambition of UK, quite rightly, to be a leader in global  trade and a trailblazer for free trade in particular. As the former Attorney General put it, assenting to these proposals
“would amount to nothing more or less than the unilateral abrogation of the treaty obligations to which we pledged our word less than 12 months ago, and which this parliament ratified in February.”
If we do not like what we signed, there is an arbitration process, so finally, I am genuinely bemused about why these clauses have been brought forward now and what they were intended to achieve. There is nothing in the Bill or in the Government amendments about them only being used in extremis, after all those other routes have been exhausted, and that includes the formal arbitration process. If we are going to pre-empt that arbitration process by saying that we will not go to arbitration, why include an arbitration process, and if we do believe in an arbitration process but we will not follow the result if it goes against us, that arbitration process is worthless and pointless.
Why now? Why not when negotiations have not come to a conclusion, if that is the case, despite the severe strain that this move has put on them? Why not nearer 31 December, if it has become clear that a deal has not been reached and the EU is determined to enact our worst-feared scenario? If this is a bargaining tactic, it does not seem to have gone down very well. It has not made negotiations any easier. It has not made a US trade deal any easier. It has not made any other trade deals any easier.
If this really is a bargaining tactic, it is necessary to be able to deliver on it, and there are doubts about whether the Bill can get through the other place. I am afraid that I just do not understand it. I hope that before we vote, Ministers will make everything magically clearer. I may give the Government the benefit of the doubt, but if it comes back for the vote of the Commons—not the Lords, notably—and those questions remain unanswered, I will not be able to support a Bill that retains these clauses unqualified. I hope that the Minister will prove me wrong.

Jim Shannon: It is a pleasure to speak on this issue. This is an intricate matter that is not helped by those with little or poor understanding of the Belfast agreement, or indeed of the truth of the troubles and our painful journey, using it as a political soundbite. Seeing Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the US House of Representatives, being led by a reporter to outline the consequences of this Bill for US-UK trade relations would have been laughable had it not highlighted the severe misunderstanding that many people are under.
This Bill is not designed to tear up the Belfast agreement; in fact, it is there to recognise that until the will of the people is to be Irish, we are to be considered British, and we are to remain so until a border poll is carried out. That border poll has not been carried out yet. The Belfast agreement underlines the notion of consent; for us to have an absolutely separate rule for state aid and other trade and transport damages the very principle of consent in the Belfast agreement. That is the reason that the Democratic Unionist party have tabled amendments on state aid—yet, for some, the message is not getting through just yet. Clauses 45 to 50 are very clear in  their purpose.
The Ulster Farmers Union has also been very clear in relation to the levels of state aid in clause 43. The Republic of Ireland has a responsibility to its constituents to secure the best deals and the best advantages, but let us be clear: it is not our friend. It is at best a friendly rival, and at worst simply a rival with a voice to implement and effect change in Europe, against our voiceless efforts post Brexit. History has shown that when it comes to doing the right thing by refusing to allow criminals to take harbour over the border, it has no desire to help us as a nation. When I have listened to debates in the Dáil, I have never once come to the conclusion that it has our best interests at heart.
That is why my colleagues and I tabled our amendments to ensure that the fears of the Ulster Farmers Union and others are not realised. How, for example, do we allow fair trade for any of our dairy products when the mainland has state aid in place in the form of grants for dairy farmers? The answer is that we simply cannot. That is why we need to change state aid through these clauses tonight. Trade is at the core of our amendments.
Clause 41, which supports the delivery of the UK Government’s commitment to unfettered access for Northern Ireland goods moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain, does so by precluding new checks, controls or administrative processes on qualifying goods as they move from Northern Ireland to GB. It similarly precludes the use of existing checks, controls or processes being used for the first time, or for a new purpose or to a new extent. That does not show the destruction of the Belfast agreement, but it is necessary for the stability of food supply and state aid. Without it, we will certainly see the destruction of our country.
As the EU sees it, the UK has committed to comply with applicable notification and standstill obligations. That means that the ceiling put on state aid by the EU still applies in Northern Ireland in relation to trade. We will be constrained under the Northern Ireland protocol to a certain level of support for agriculture, only a certain proportion of which can be spent, for instance, on coupled payments. With that in mind, I believe that Northern Ireland could be constrained by these very rules. That is why tonight we wish to support our amendments and the clauses that the Government have put forward. We urge Members to do the same.

Thomas Tugendhat: I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), who I very much agreed with.
Today we are talking about the answer that Margaret Thatcher gave to Dean Acheson’s famous question, “What is Britain’s role in the world?” She was right: our national mission is upholding the rule of law. That lesson served her and our nation exceptionally well. It gave moral legitimacy to the courageous defence of British nationals in the Falkland Islands and strength  to the treaty that she signed two years later with China to protect British nationals in Hong Kong. Trust in the treaties allowed Margaret Thatcher to start down the road of peace in our own nation and conclude the Anglo-Irish agreement with the then Taoiseach, Garret FitzGerald.
It is recognition of our legal principles that holds our Union together. Whether we celebrate the Boyne or the rising, Robert I or Edward I, Llywelyn ap Gruffudd or the Black Prince, we all know that this is a civic Union based on rules, not regiments, and we live together because together we consent. Prime Ministers and Taoisigh have known for decades that consent matters because one day our Union may change. The Belfast agreement envisions that possibility, and the treaty that gives Dublin a voice today could, one day, be used in reverse by Westminster. As a proud Unionist, I defend international law and the treaties that we have signed, because one day we may need it to protect us.
The treaty that the Government are negotiating today protects us as well. For 40 years, Brits have moved around and lived in EU states, and many businesses continue to rely on continental connections to prosper. They need to know that what comes next will enable them to plan their lives and futures. They need the law to protect them. But the law must not just be predictable: it must be fair. This is where I have sympathy for the Government. Some in Brussels have treated these negotiations as a legal game, forgetting that their intention is to build a common future, not simply to decide the rules of membership. The simple fact that the Government have felt the need to make such a blunt response to the EU’s offers shows how much Ministers must feel that they have failed to exert leverage at the table. The talks are fundamentally political, so could not a political signal have been sent that did not allow Communist dictators in China to use our own words to mock us, or see US leaders on both sides warn us of the risks that we are running? Perhaps it was; I am sure that the Government would be delighted to make that clear.
Of course, no agreements can ever be cast in stone. They are fundamentally made to enable the freedoms of peoples in countries around the world to co-operate. Most famously, President de Gaulle commented on the end of treaties when he took France out of the NATO command structure after only 20 years. “Treaties are like roses”, he said, “they last as long as they last.” But to threaten this one so soon after signing must have been a last resort. That, at least, is what the Government are now telling us. The PM said that he had not consulted the Foreign Office. Surely the Government must have considered the cost before taking this drastic step.
Now that so much of the damage is done, as has been set out today, the onus is on our Government to push hard for an agreement, because, sadly, the EU will now be able to point at us if the talks fail. Whatever we say, too many will now believe that it was we who broke the deal first, and this has put us at a disadvantage. We all know that the impact of a rupture will be felt very keenly in Kent, just as much as it will in Ulster, and we now know, clearly, that many of our allies are deeply concerned about what a failure of statecraft could mean.
With a parliamentary lock on these powers splitting the Bill into two parts and giving us the time to see if the EU really has broken faith with the deal before allowing the Government to act, the Prime Minister has at least moved towards the point of reason, and he could go one step further. The Government should restate what they have already agreed in public and in print—that Britain will abide by the arbitration proceedings  set out in the withdrawal agreement. That would turn the Bill into what it has been described as today by Ministers—an interim measure in case of emergency. Although it would still set out a way for Britain to be free of unfair treaties, it would at least make it clear that this was to be used only in extremis. Perhaps that would go some way towards restoring Britain’s reputation, as a regrettable second best to the removal of these clauses altogether. I recognise why the Government want this in parallel, but without accepting that the arbitration is binding, it is simply a reversal of the treaty. We need our word to count; global Britain depends on it.

Tobias Ellwood: I was not expecting to participate in this debate, but I never thought I would hear a Minister in this Chamber say that we might be breaching international law. I am grateful to Lords Howard and Lamont for quashing the myth that somehow those who speak against part 5 of the Bill are part of a tactic to support the EU or promote a remain cause. We have left the EU already.  I voted for it, it was part of our manifesto and I supported that.
This debate is being watched far and wide, and I spent last week speaking to counterparts from my Defence Committee in the United States and to Washington DC, explaining to Senators and Members of Congress—they were bewildered—that we will continue to honour the Good Friday agreement. It is so important that we recognise what we have done in the past and where we are today and that we do not damage our hard-fought reputation.
We do not need the integrated review to understand that the world is getting more dangerous. The threats are getting more complex and more diverse. We are approaching great geopolitical change—an era of danger that we have not seen since the cold war—and at the same time the west is becoming more risk-averse and less consolidated in what we believe in and what we actually stand for. As we fight hard to secure a deal, let us not forget who we are and what we fought for. We are the founding fathers of international democracy and of the rule of law as well, so I am very pleased that the Government have conceded to grant Parliament a vote, were the powers in this Bill ever to be considered, but I am sorry that we have taken a very damaging route to get here.
As we finally conclude Brexit, let us not lose sight of the international moral high ground. The world is once again getting more dangerous. British leading leadership is once again in demand. Let us secure Brexit with our reputation repaired.

Antony Higginbotham: In rising to support the Bill, I want to speak about clauses 40 to 45. I start by quoting from the manifesto that I proudly stood on. It brought not just me to the House, but so many of my colleagues. That manifesto said clearly:
“We will ensure that Northern Ireland’s businesses and producers enjoy unfettered access to the rest of the UK and that in the implementation of our Brexit deal, we maintain and strengthen the integrity and smooth operation of our internal market.”

Kirsten Oswald: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Antony Higginbotham: I will not, because I am short on time. The clauses we are talking about today do exactly what we said in the manifesto. Clause 40 deals  with Northern Ireland’s place in the UK internal market. Clause 41 deals with unfettered access. Those should be uncontroversial clauses and they should be uncontroversial because they are explicitly referenced in the protocol itself, which states that
“nothing in this Protocol prevents the United Kingdom from ensuring unfettered market access for goods moving from Northern Ireland to the rest of the United Kingdom’s internal market”.
As we have heard today, the protocol goes on to set out in high-level terms how we avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland, something that I am as committed to today as I was the day I voted for Brexit. We heard eloquently from my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) why that is so important. The protocol also sets out that it is for the Joint Committee to reach agreement on some of the specifics. It delegates decision making to that committee to finesse the detail and act in a way that is consistent with the protocol. The protocol requires both sides to negotiate in good faith, protect the Good Friday agreement and reach a free trade deal, because ultimately that free trade deal is what will prevent a hard border. That is what we are striving for, and that is what the clauses help to do.
However, given the short time before the end of the transition and that no free trade agreement has yet been agreed, we have to give thought to what happens if the EU takes an approach that is not in good faith. What if it takes a maximalist approach to what goods are considered high risk or a maximalist approach to what would constitute state aid that impacts the European Union? The outcome of that decision would not only be a major impediment to Great Britain and Northern Irish trade, but would threaten our own integrity and the Good Friday agreement. Are some seriously suggesting that in that scenario there should not be a means for the UK to respond? Are they suggesting we should look at such a situation, shrug our shoulders and say international law means we must surrender parts of our country?
I heard the concerns from Members on both sides of the Committee about international law, but let us be clear on what we are not doing. I do not think that the language has been helpful. We have heard references to rogue states, to the Novichok poisoning on UK streets and to Hong Kong citizens, but we are not breaking international criminal law. We are not breaking an international treaty on global security. We are not breaking a free trade agreement. We are saying that, having signed up to an agreement to fulfil a democratic mandate to the people of this country, which one side appears to be using to undermine our constitutional integrity, we will stand resolutely as one country in pushing back.
We have values as a country, and yes, those include standing up for an international rules-based system, the rule of law and democratic sovereignty, but when conflict arises, which it can do from time to time, Parliament remains sovereign, and this Parliament will act in the interests of our Union. That position was reaffirmed in our own EU withdrawal Act, which recognised the sovereignty of Parliament. If this Parliament is sovereign, we must act for the constitutional integrity of our country, and for that reason, I will be supporting this Bill.

Robin Walker: We have heard passionate speeches from both sides of the debate and from a range of colleagues across the political spectrum in Northern Ireland and across the UK. I will not be able to take interventions because of the short time available.
In response to the specific question from the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), although I will not go into the detail of Joint Committee discussions, I can confirm that we certainly have raised the issue of state aid. We, of course, want to see that resolved through the Joint Committee, as we have repeatedly set out.
I recognise the significant concerns raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) and others across the Committee, which is why we have agreed that the break-glass provision should be included in the Bill, requiring the House of Commons to give its approval before these measures are commenced. My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) asked an important question, and we will, of course, ensure that the House has the opportunity to debate matters in full before voting on commencement of these provisions.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) has made clear, if we reach that point, the Government will have to make a persuasive case to the House. We published a statement last week saying that we will ask Parliament to support the use of provisions in the Bill only in the case of the EU being engaged in a material breach of its duties of good faith and thereby undermining the fundamental purpose of the Northern Ireland protocol.
As I set out earlier, let me reassure Members that the Government are absolutely committed to implementing the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol, meeting our obligations to secure the peace process. We continue to work with the EU in the Joint Committee to resolve outstanding issues with the Northern Ireland protocol, as the Prime Minister has set out. However, as a responsible Government, we cannot allow the economic integrity of the UK’s internal market to be inadvertently compromised by unintended consequences of the protocol. The protocol was designed as a way of implementing the needs of our exit from the EU in a way that worked for Northern Ireland, and in particular for maintaining the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, the gains of the peace process and the delicate balance that that reflects between both communities’ interests. It explicitly depends on the consent of the people of Northern Ireland for its continued existence.
We are taking limited and reasonable steps to create a legal safety net by taking powers in reserve, whereby Ministers can guarantee the integrity of our United Kingdom and ensure that the Government are always able to deliver on their commitments to the people of Northern Ireland. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) said in an excellent speech, one of those commitments is to the sustained economic growth of Northern Ireland.
These limited steps deliver on the commitments that the Government made in their general election manifesto—the manifesto on which every Government Member was returned. They deliver on the commitments made in the Command Paper published in May, and they deliver on the promises made by this Government and our predecessor to provide unfettered access between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. I therefore urge Members to vote against all amendments, other than  those brought forward by the Government, to ensure the peace and prosperity of Northern Ireland and our whole United Kingdom.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 40 - Northern Ireland's place in the UK internal market and customs territory

Amendment proposed: 41, page 31, line 16, at end insert—
‘(1A) When exercising any functions covered by this Part, any appropriate authority has a paramount duty—
(a) to act without prejudice to all international and domestic law, including the Withdrawal Agreement;
(b) to address the unique circumstances on the island of Ireland;
(c) to maintain the necessary conditions for continued North-South cooperation;
(d) to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland;
(e) to protect the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement in all its dimensions.” —(Stephen Farry.)
This amendment is intended to provide a safeguard so that any actions with respect to Part 5 of the Bill must be consistent with relevant existing international and domestic law commitments, including the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement and its Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol.

The Committee divided: Ayes 255, Noes 346.
Question accordingly negatived.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for  a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.
Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order, 14 September).
The Chair put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83D).
Amendment proposed: 68, in clause40,page31, line16,at end insert—
‘(1A) Regulations that would introduce new requirements for goods traded from Great Britain to Northern Ireland may not come into force without the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
(1B) No additional official or administrative costs consequent on any regulations of the kind mentioned in subsection (1A) may be recouped from the private sector.—(Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson.)
The intention of this amendment is to require the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly before trade frictions are imposed on goods traded from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, and to protect Northern Ireland businesses from paying for any new administrative costs.

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 350.
Question accordingly negatived.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.
Clause 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 41 - Unfettered access to UK internal market for Northern Ireland goods

Amendments made: 61, page32,line13,at end insert—
“(d) is necessary for the purposes of VAT or excise duty in consequence of the Northern Ireland Protocol, or
“(e) is necessary for the purpose of dealing with a threat to biosecurity in Great Britain.”
This amendment introduces additional exceptions to the restriction in clause 41(1). The exceptions are for any exercise of functions that is necessary for the purposes of VAT or excise duty in consequence of the Northern Ireland Protocol; or necessary to deal with a threat to biosecurity (human, animal or plant health).
Amendment 62, page32,line22,at end insert—
‘(3A) For the purposes of this section the exercise of a function “is necessary for the purposes of VAT or excise duty in consequence of the Northern Ireland Protocol” if—
(a) the appropriate authority exercising the function is the Treasury, the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, or the Director of Border Revenue,
(b) the function is exercised for the purposes of VAT or excise duty (including for the purposes of preventing double taxation, partial or complete non-taxation, or evasion), and
(c) the appropriate authority exercising the function considers that the exercise is necessary in consequence of the Northern Ireland Protocol.
(3B) For the purposes of this section the exercise of a function “is necessary for the purpose of dealing with a threat to biosecurity in Great Britain” if the exercise of the function consists of—
(a) the making, or operation, of legislation which satisfies the conditions set out in paragraph 1 of Schedule 1, or
(b) any other activity which satisfies the conditions set out in paragraph 1(2) (3), (4) and (6) of Schedule 1 (reading any reference in those conditions to “legislation” as a reference to the activity in question).
(3C) In determining for the purposes of subsection (3B)(b) whether the condition in paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 1 is met, a pest or disease is to be taken to be present in Northern Ireland if it is, or may be, present in qualifying Northern Ireland goods (including when the goods are in Great Britain).’.
This amendment contains interpretation provision relating to the new exceptions introduced by Amendment 61. The exception for threats to biosecurity applies in the same circumstances as the exclusion from the market access principles that is set out in paragraph 1 of Schedule 1.
Amendment 63, page33,line16,at end insert—
‘“excise duty” means any excise duty under—
(a) the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979,
(b) the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979, or
(c) the Tobacco Products Duty Act 1979;’.— (Mr Walker.)
This amendment contains interpretation provision relating to the new exceptions introduced by Amendment 61.
Clause 41, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 42 - Power to disapply or modify export declarations and other exit procedures

Amendment proposed: 54, page33,line40,at end insert “, and
(c) the need to respect the rule of law.”—(Paul Blomfield.)
This amendment would require Ministers to take into account the rule of law when making regulations about exit procedures for goods moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Question negatived.
Question put (single Question on successive provisions of the Bill), That clauses 42 to 44 stand part of the Bill.

The Committee divided: Ayes 332, Noes 257.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Clauses 42 to 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.

Clause 45 - Further provision related to sections 42 and 43 etc

Amendments made: 64, page36,line11,at end insert—
‘(2A) The period mentioned in each of the following provisions (standard time limits for seeking judicial review), or any corresponding successor provision, may not be extended under any circumstances in relation to a relevant claim or application—
(a) rule 54.5(1)(b) of the Civil Procedure Rules in relation to England and Wales;
(b) section 27A(1)(a) of the Court of Session Act 1988 in relation to Scotland;
(c) rule 4(1) of Order 53 of the Rules of the Court of Judicature (Northern Ireland) 1980 (S.R. (N.I.) 1980 No. 346) in relation to Northern Ireland.
(2B) The jurisdiction and powers of a court or tribunal in relation to a relevant claim or application are subject to subsections (1) and (2).”
This amendment and Amendment 65 would provide that the standard time limit for an application for judicial review of regulations under clause 42 or 43 could not be extended.
65, page36,line18,at end insert—
““relevant claim or application” means—
(a) a claim for judicial review in relation to England and Wales,
(b) an application to the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Session in relation to Scotland, or
(c) an application for judicial review in relation to Northern Ireland,
where the claim or application is for the purpose of questioning the validity or lawfulness of regulations under section 42(1) or 43(1);” —(Mr Robin Walker.)
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 64.
Question put, That clause 45, as amended, and clause 50 stand part of the Bill.

The Committee divided: Ayes 338, Noes 254.
Question accordingly agreed to.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for  a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.
Clause 45, as amended, and clause 50 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The occupant of the Chair left the Chair (Programme Order, 14 September).
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again tomorrow.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Eleanor Laing: With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 2 to 6 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Exiting the European Union

That the draft European Structural and Investment Funds Common Provisions and Common Provision Rules etc. (Amendment) (EU Exit) (Revocation) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 13 July, be approved.

Infrastructure Planning

That the draft Infrastructure Planning (Electricity Storage Facilities) Order 2020, which was laid before this House on 14 July, be approved.

Representation of the People

That the draft Representation of the People (Electoral Registers Publication Date) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 15 June, be approved.

Environmental Protection

That the draft Air Quality (Domestic Solid Fuels Standards) (England) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 21 July, be approved.

Exiting the European Union (Financial Services and Markets)

That the draft Equivalence Determinations for Financial Services (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 25 June, be approved.—(David T. C. Davies.)
Question agreed to.

Eleanor Laing: With the leave of the House, we will take motions 7 to 10 together.
Ordered,

Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee

That Ruth Jones be discharged from the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee and Zarah Sultana be added.

Education Committee

That Dawn Butler be discharged from the Education Committee and Fleur Anderson be added.

Public Accounts Committee

That Bridget Phillipson be discharged from the Public Accounts Committee and Barry Gardiner be added.

Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee

That Chris Evans be discharged from the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee and Navendu Mishra be added.—(Bill Wiggin, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

ARM: Foreign Acquisition

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(David T. C. Davies.)

Daniel Zeichner: Earlier this evening, BBC Look East reported that this was a debate worth waiting up for, so we surely must not disappoint. I am very grateful for the opportunity to raise an issue vital to my constituency, but also important for the future of the wider UK economy. I declare at the outset that I am a member of Unite the union, and I am very grateful to it for giving me the opportunity to hear directly from members employed at the company.
This urgently needed debate is to secure answers  on the future of one of the UK’s most successful tech companies, ARM, which is based in my constituency. It was confirmed last Monday that it was being sold to the American tech firm Nvidia. Since it was founded in 1990 in Cambridge, ARM has become one of the UK’s best home-grown technology success stories, with huge global reach. It now designs and licenses the basic blueprints of chips used in around 90% of the world’s smartphones, as well as countless sensors, smart devices and cloud devices. Hundreds of global companies license its designs, including Apple, Samsung, Huawei and Qualcomm, putting the UK firmly at the centre of global technological development. ARM employs around 2,700 people in the UK, many in highly skilled, high-tech jobs. They work in its headquarters in Cambridge and across the country in Belfast, Manchester and Warwick.

Jim Shannon: First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this Adjournment debate. I share his concern, as I have a number of high-tech and modern manufacturing companies in my constituency. Does he agree that the proposed sale will be against the national interest and the UK’s ambitions to be a European technological powerhouse? It is important for us in the UK to look after our own.

Daniel Zeichner: The hon. Gentleman anticipates my arguments, because there can be little doubt that this home-grown tech star is a great national asset for the country. Back in 2016, alongside many in Cambridge and across the UK tech sector, I was hugely disappointed to see ARM sold to the Japanese conglomerate SoftBank. I warned then that we were losing control of this important national asset, and I fear we are now seeing that warning borne out.
ARM’s sell-off in 2016 was backed by this Government with conditions that its headquarters would stay in Cambridge and its staff would be maintained, and so far that guarantee has been honoured, but we are now faced with a new situation with the news of the sale  last Monday. Back in 2016, the then Chancellor, Philip Hammond, considered it so significant that he announced the deal personally and legally binding guarantees enforceable by the Takeover Panel were secured. This time there has been silence from Government—a silence that I hope will be broken this evening. Although I recognise the sensitivities around commercial confidentiality, the same applied back in 2016. We need to know what the Government’s view is on the transfer of a key UK- based technology giant, particularly in such uncertain times.

Darren Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. Does he agree with me that in assessing the risks of the takeover bid, we need to understand the possible repercussions for British jobs and industry if trade sanctions are put in place by President Trump, for example, as the Nvidia parent company is based in the United States?

Daniel Zeichner: I thank my hon. Friend the Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee. He makes an important point that I will come on to, but I return to the Government’s position, because I find their silence slightly ominous. It has only been breached by briefings to selected journalists and, frankly, that does not seem good enough to me.
It would be astonishing if this Government, with all their talk of world-beating test systems and taking back control, considered allowing us to lose further control of one of the only areas of technology in which we are genuinely world-beating and world-leading. It is particularly astonishing that the Government might be prepared to throw away British influence when it represents such a key bargaining chip in trade talks in a post-Brexit era. I do not think any other country in the world would allow such a jewel in the tech crown to be handed over in this way, so I urge the Government to scrutinise the deal carefully and to step in and use powers available to them to impose strict, legally binding conditions.
The sale raises a range of questions and issues of local, national and international significance. I have been raising them for many weeks now, as have trade unions and the co-founders of ARM. We have received little substantial response from Government, although I was pleased to have a direct discussion with Nvidia today. I invite the Minister to provide some answers from the Government’s perspective.
Since the announcement, Nvidia has made promises to keep ARM based in Cambridge, to hire more staff and to retain ARM’s brand, but without any legal guarantees, I fear those remain just promises—doubtless genuinely made—not guarantees. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government are seeking legal assurances in this deal to ensure that ARM’s headquarters remain in Cambridge and it retains the some 2,700 jobs it supports in my constituency and across the country? I am sure the Minister will say that it is hardly likely that Nvidia would ditch highly sought-after engineers, but members of Unite have told me that many jobs, particularly in IT, are much more vulnerable. Similarly, I am told that some 300 people in Cambridge work on graphics processors, an area in which Nvidia works. It could be a perfect match, or it could mean rationalisation and job cuts.
There is little sign of much meaningful consultation with those who work for the company. Having followed the media commentary, it has struck me that those who work for ARM hardly seem to have a voice—a doleful consequence, I fear, of a largely non-unionised workforce. The money may be good, but when it comes to times such as this, the value of having professional negotiators acting on one’s behalf becomes apparent. I am grateful for the strong interventions from not only Unite but Prospect, which also has members at ARM. I have a further question: will the Minister confirm that Cambridge will continue to be the company HQ and explain how promises will be enforced? Anyone can make promises,   but will they be kept? How will they be enforced? The deal will affect jobs not just now but in the future, and could have serious ramifications.
ARM’s current business model has been highly successful. It is based on remaining neutral in the tech market and licensing chip designs to any chip maker that wants them. ARM’s co-founder Hermann Hauser has warned that although SoftBank was able to maintain ARM’s neutrality, Nvidia is different: it is a chip maker itself, so companies using ARM will now find themselves as competitors with its parent company. Some could start to seek alternatives. Nvidia has said that it will maintain ARM’s neutrality, but we have no legal assurances. Will the Government be seeking assurances that ARM’s unique business model—and so its success—will be secured?
The sale has implications both internationally and diplomatically. If ARM becomes a subsidiary of the American company Nvidia, we will in effect be handing over control to the current US Government, as it could become subject to their foreign investment regulatory committee, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. The Trump Administration will then ultimately hold the reins over which countries use the technology—which is used in almost all mobile phone chips in the world—and where it will be possible to export it.
It is quite clear that Trump has no qualms about interfering in the operations of tech companies to pursue his own foreign policy goals. Chinese tech companies have already voiced concerns that American ownership of ARM could jeopardise access to ARM technologies for their businesses. Some may not be bothered about that, but it highlights the real role that this UK-located tech giant plays in the international struggle for technological sovereignty.
We need guarantees that ARM is not going to be embroiled in American trade wars and that decisions over this key technology are not completely lost to us. As the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee said:
“The sale of @Arm raises questions of sovereignty. Control of tech is an essential element of independence and @UKParliament will have no say on the CFIUS decisions that go to the US President alone.”
I agree. To safeguard the UK’s interests, we need clear conditions on the takeover to exempt ARM’s tech from intrusive US regulations.
The takeover comes more than a year after the Government’s telecoms supply chain review report, in which the Government committed to diversifying the UK telecommunication supply chain. Since then, a plan to do just that has repeatedly been promised and repeatedly been delayed. Will the Minister explain just how selling this UK-headquartered, world-leading telecoms supplier to a competitor supports the diversification of the supply chain?
I understand that the Government say they are looking into the takeover and that Ministers are considering whether to refer it to the Competition and Markets Authority. I also appreciate that Government policy is in a state of flux, with a pattern of tech businesses being taken over, the status of the industrial strategy unclear, and the national security and investment Bill yet to be published, so we have to use what we have. The Government have the power to impose conditions on such takeovers if they threaten national security or financial stability, which the selling of ARM to Nvidia clearly does.
I appreciate that the Minister who will respond to this debate is the Minister for Digital and Culture, not a Minister from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy or the Minister for Security—that serves to highlight the complexity of the issue. Last time, the Chancellor took ownership; we need the same again. We need a coherent, cross-Government response, led from the top. I urge the Minister to consider such issues carefully, make the case to her colleagues and wake up to the threat that the deal poses unless strict, legally binding conditions are applied.
In conclusion, will the Minister confirm today whether it is the Government’s intention to refer the takeover to the Competition and Markets Authority? Do the Government intend to place clear conditions on the deal to guarantee that ARM’s HQ will stay in Cambridge; that jobs will be protected; that its unique business model will be secured; and that its technology will not be a lever in future trade negotiations that this Government have handed to our competitors?

Andrew Griffith: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. It is a half-hour debate. I have not been told that you wish to speak and I am not sure whether the person who is holding the debate has either. You can intervene, but I have not been given notice of anybody else. Have you been told, Daniel Zeichner?

Daniel Zeichner: Only of one other Member.

Lindsay Hoyle: Has the Minister been told? Three people are meant to know in an Adjournment debate: the Minister, the Chair, and the person whose debate it is.

Caroline Dinenage: I am happy.

Lindsay Hoyle: I am happy, but the courtesies have not been carried out, as I understand it.

Andrew Griffith: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister and I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on securing this debate on a subject that is important to his constituents and to all of us. I also congratulate everybody associated with ARM, which is a great British success story of the type that we need more of in this country.
I am an optimist and I believe that ARM will prosper under its new ownership. Nvidia is an exciting company that works on some of the cutting-edge technologies that ARM has excelled in. I hope it will open the world to more opportunities. I welcome, as the hon. Gentleman has, the commitments that have been given to maintain a presence in Cambridge and to build an artificial intelligence centre there.
I also hope that the new owners will enjoy the benefits of operating in the United Kingdom with our adherence to the rule of law and to the English language and the pro-enterprise environment. ARM will also greatly benefit  from the Government’s commitment to double investment in science, which is a point of alignment on both sides of the House.
I beg to differ with the hon. Gentleman on the two things that I think businesses such as ARM need to prosper and thrive. The first is certainty, which is rarely aided when the Government get involved. As the hon. Gentleman will know, ARM made 24 acquisitions to get the business to the place it is in today. If the Government had intervened on those acquisitions, perhaps it would not have been so successful.
Secondly, businesses need access to capital, which used to be one of the great strengths of the United Kingdom. We had a vibrant new listings market that the Hermann Hausers of tomorrow would be looking to. Another unforeseen effect of the Government making an intervention would be that our capital markets would become less attractive, less competitive and less able to foster the ARMs of the future, which is what the Government should seek to do to create the jobs, opportunity and prosperity that the country will need.

Caroline Dinenage: I start by thanking the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) for securing this debate on an important matter, to which he is right to bring the attention of the House. His constituency is a vital part of our nation’s tech environment, and I fully understand that many of his constituents’ jobs are in the sector.
The Government are incredibly passionate about protecting a vibrant, successful and growing tech sector in the UK, and about remaining at the cutting edge of innovation. A key part of that is the design of microprocessors, which are crucial for building reliable and predictable chips for worldwide customers. ARM is at the heart of that semiconductor ecosystem. As one of the largest tech companies in Europe, it is hard to overstate ARM’s significance to the wider sector, as the hon. Gentleman articulated beautifully. It has massive potential to give our country an advantage in a wide range of sectors and technologies.
The Government closely monitor all acquisitions and mergers. When a takeover may have a significant impact on the UK, we will not hesitate to investigate further and take appropriate action. In this case, we are working hard to understand the full impact of the move and the potential impact it may have on the future. From there, we are able to consider what steps we may wish to take.

Daniel Zeichner: Will the Minister give way?

Caroline Dinenage: I will in a moment. I will make a bit of progress, then I will be happy to take the hon. Gentleman’s questions.
The Enterprise Act 2002 allows the Government to call in transactions on four public interest grounds: financial stability, national security, media plurality and public health emergencies. When a Secretary of State decides to intervene under the Act, they declare a public interest intervention notice. That triggers a deadline for the Competition and Markets Authority to conduct what it calls a phase 1 investigation. The CMA will then engage with the parties while it gathers the information and publishes an invitation to comment notice. That  invites views from the merger parties and other interested third parties on the transaction under review. At the end of that phase 1 stage, the Secretary of State can: clear the merger, clear the merger with undertakings, or refer the merger to a phase 2 investigation. At the conclusion of the phase 2 investigation, the Secretary of State would consider if the transaction meets the threshold for intervention on public interest grounds under the Enterprise Act, and therefore make a decision on the necessary steps if and when it would be appropriate to do so.
The reason I am explaining that to the hon. Gentleman is that I think it is really important to articulate the number of very careful steps we would have to take in that process. In this instance, the Secretary of State for Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport would be the final decision maker. It is obviously extremely critical that he does so with an independent mind, having received all the relevant information and without prejudice. I am sure he will understand that while I am very happy to stand at the Dispatch Box and answer as many of his questions as possible, I have to be very careful not to say anything that could in any way prejudice that decision or any future moves. However, I will try to answer as many of his questions as I can.
As the hon. Gentleman will know, on Monday 14 September Nvidia and Softbank Group announced a definitive agreement under which Nvidia will acquire ARM Limited from Softbank in a transaction valued at $40 billion. The announcement stated that Softbank will remain committed to ARM’s long-term success through its ownership stake in Nvidia, which is expected to be under 10%. Furthermore, the statement said that ARM will remain headquartered in Cambridge. Nvidia and Softbank have made statements to the media expressing their commitment to maintaining ARM as a successful business in the UK. They have suggested that they will build on ARM’s R&D presence here by establishing a global centre of excellence and will create a platform for global innovation with industry partners across multiple fields. We will consider all those statements incredibly carefully.

Jim Shannon: Yesterday’s papers suggested that last year ARM paid some £268 million in tax and that it has the potential to be Britain’s first trillion dollar company. Has the Minister had any assurances from the company about its commitment to keeping its tax base here, and thereby the tax it pays to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs her as well?

Caroline Dinenage: We have had conversations with the company at various points over recent months. However, I do not want to prejudice the situation in any way, shape or form, so I do not really want to discuss any of its commercial aspects, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.

Darren Jones: As a point of factual clarification, could the Minister confirm whether the impact of US trade sanctions is considered in the process that she set out with the CMA?

Caroline Dinenage: I think that that would depend on which aspect, of the four that are under consideration, the Secretary of State was looking at.
As the hon. Member for Cambridge and others know, the UK is a global leader in tech, with a proud history of innovation and invention. Our world-leading universities, financial sector and regulatory environment have produced pioneering researchers, scientific institutions and research projects, and the UK tech sector has the world’s highest proportion of overseas customers, driving our ability to forge global partnerships and attract the very best talent from around the world. From artificial intelligence to biotechnology, the UK has made huge breakthroughs, generating more billion-dollar tech firms than any other country in Europe. Nationally, we now have 82 companies that are worth more than $1 billion—more than France, Germany and the Netherlands combined.
We will, of course, continue to invest in science and technology and R&D-intensive emerging sectors such as artificial intelligence, quantum technologies and robotics. We will also continue to promote the UK as the very best place to start and grow a tech business. We have the skills, the location and the language, alongside a business-friendly environment, strong access to finance and a long-standing reputation for innovation.

Daniel Zeichner: I am grateful to the Minister for taking a further intervention. I just want to clarify who the Government have been talking to. She said that there have been conversations with the company—is that ARM or Nvidia? It is a key difference. I understand the point she makes about the sensitivities, but the same was true in 2016, and it was possible then for the Government to secure guarantees. Why not now?

Caroline Dinenage: Ministers and officials have spoken to various parties in recent days, and we will continue to do so as we seek to understand the full implications of this transaction from every angle.
The hon. Gentleman will know how diverse our tech sector is in the UK. I know that Cambridge has a greater proportion of people in tech than any other city in the UK besides Belfast, so I fully appreciate the worry that this causes for him and his constituents. Well over 2,000 people are based in ARM’s Cambridge headquarters, and we are determined to see that continue. I thank him for his continued interest. I am sorry that I have not been able to answer all his questions as fully as he would have liked me to or as I would have liked to, but I promise that I will keep him closely abreast of this issue as it develops.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.

Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote

The following is the list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy:

  

  Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green)
  Chris Elmore


  Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk)
  Stuart Andrew


  Siobhan Baillie (Stroud)
  Stuart Andrew


  Hannah Bardell (Livingston)
  Patrick Grady


  Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay)
  Stuart Andrew


  Margaret Beckett (Derby South)
  Clive Efford


  Scott Benton (Blackpool South)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen)
  Stuart Andrew


  Clive Betts (Sheffield South East)
  Chris Elmore


  Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South)
  Patrick Grady


  Bob Blackman (Harrow East)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North)
  Patrick Grady


  Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill)
  Patrick Grady


  Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham)
  Chris Elmore


  Richard Burgon (Leeds East)
  Zarah Sultana


  Conor Burns (Bournemouth West)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby)
  Beth Winter


  Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill)
  Chris Elmore


  Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire)
  Patrick Grady


  Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton)
  Chris Elmore


  Sarah Champion (Rotherham)
  Chris Elmore


  Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife)
  Patrick Grady


  Feryal Clark (Enfield North)
  Chris Elmore


  Theo Clarke (Stafford)
  Stuart Andrew


  Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire)
  Chris Elmore


  Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde)
  Patrick Grady


  Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East)
  Patrick Grady


  Stella Creasy (Walthamstow)
  Chris Elmore


  Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford)
  Caroline Nokes


  Judith Cummins (Bradford South)
  Chris Elmore


  Janet Daby (Lewisham East)
  Chris Elmore


  Geraint Davies (Swansea West)
  Chris Evans


  Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd)
  Chris Elmore


  David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden)
  Stuart Andrew


  Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk)
  Patrick Grady


  Marsha De Cordova (Battersea)
  Rachel Hopkins


  Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock)
  Patrick Grady


  Peter Dowd (Bootle)
  Chris Elmore


  Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington)
  Chris Elmore


  Philip Dunne (Ludlow)
  Jeremy Hunt


  Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover)
  Maria Caulfield


  Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford)
  Stuart Andrew


  Michael Fabricant (Lichfield)
  Stuart Andrew


  Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw)
  Patrick Grady


  Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South)
  Patrick Grady


  Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford)
  Stuart Andrew


  George Freeman (Mid Norfolk)
  Bim Afolami


  Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough)
  Chris Elmore


  Marcus Fysh (Yeovil)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet)
  Caroline Nokes


  Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden)
  Tom Tugendhat


  Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston)
  Chris Elmore


  Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mary Glindon (North Tyneside)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Grant (Glenrothes)
  Patrick Grady


  Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts)
  Patrick Grady


  Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West)
  Chris Elmore


  James Grundy (Leigh)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish)
  Chris Elmore


  Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East)
  Chris Elmore


  Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston)
  Chris Elmore


  Simon Hoare (North Dorset)
  Fay Jones


  Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West)
  Chris Elmore


  Adam Holloway (Gravesham)
  Maria Caulfield


  Sir George Howarth (Knowsley)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border)
  Stuart Andrew


  Imran Hussain (Bradford East)
  Chris Elmore


  Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North)
  Chris Elmore


  Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton)
  Stuart Andrew


  Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South)
  Chris Elmore


  Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julian Knight (Solihull)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Lavery (Wansbeck)
  Kate Osborne


  Chris Law (Dundee West)
  Patrick Grady


  Clive Lewis (Norwich South)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tony Lloyd (Rochdale)
  Chris Elmore


  Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles)
  Cat Smith


  Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster)
  Lee Rowley


  Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking)
  Stuart Andrew


  Holly Lynch (Halifax)
  Chris Elmore


  Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian)
  Patrick Grady


  Rachel Maclean (Redditch)
  Stuart Andrew


  Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar)
  Patrick Grady


  Karl McCartney (Lincoln)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough)
  Chris Elmore


  John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington)
  Zarah Sultana


  John Mc Nally (Falkirk)
  Patrick Grady


  Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr)
  Chris Elmore


  Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood)
  Chris Elmore


  Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys)
  Mark Spencer


  Ian Mearns (Gateshead)
  Chris Elmore


  Mark Menzies (Fylde)
  Stuart Andrew


  Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Murray (Ealing North)
  Chris Elmore


  Ian Murray (Edinburgh South)
  Chris Elmore


  John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire)
  Patrick Grady


  Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon)
  Rebecca Harris


  Guy Opperman (Hexham)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kate Osamor (Edmonton)
  Nadia Whittome


  Owen Paterson North Shropshire)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)
  Peter Aldous


  Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East)
  Chris Elmore


  Christina Rees (Neath)
  Chris Elmore


  Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge)
  Chris Elmore


  Andrew Rosindell (Romford)
  Rebecca Harris


  Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield)
  Chris Elmore


  Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East)
  Patrick Grady


  Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn)
  Chris Elmore


  Henry Smith (Crawley)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jo Stevens (Cardiff Glasgow Central)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mel Stride (Central Devon)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jon Trickett (Hemsworth)
  Olivia Blake


  Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East)
  Chris Elmore


  Hywel Williams (Arfon)
  Liz Saville Roberts


  Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire)
  Patrick Grady